谈经济要分清 自我意愿 和 客观规律 的区别

谁不希望经济天天暴涨？谁不希望手中的房子每天贵一倍？谁不希望股市每天涨停？

这些都是每一个人内心美好地希望，但是谈论问题的时候，是让大家说出自己的判断，而每个人的判断应该来自于客观的经济大势，这偏偏又不以人的内心愿望而转移。

我想要，是指你内心的希冀
我认为，是指你对客观局势的客观判断

如果投资置业一味按照自己的希望来操作，我只想劝您一句话，客观情况从来不会以你的主观意志为转移。股市房市都不会因为你想要涨跌而涨跌。

一个一无所有的穷人，穷无可穷，他可以从自己的眼界出发，看空整个市场。
一个坐拥千万家财的人，手上无数投资项目，当然是希望整个市场蒸蒸日上。

以上是他们自己的愿望，而不是客观规律，客观的经济状况绝对不会因为他们出于自身的情况而发表的观点而被左右。

所以，回到讨论经济问题的观点上来，如果一个人是要严肃的来讨论一下经济问题，而不是简单的喊几句口号，表达一下自己是出于什么阶层，那么就应该是客观分析整个经济面的各种情况，并以此为依据来提出自己的观点。

一个人，现在可以看多09年股市和房市，只要他能说的出经济上的理由，比如上海明年经济大发展，全国人民消费欲望明年大大高于今年，全国人民手上的投资资金明年比今年多等，只要拿得出证据证明自己的观点，就可以成为一个合格的多军。

但是一个因为房价跌股市熊会损害到自己的利益，于是就成为多军的人，只能是一个智商不合格的人。

我关于部分上海人认为外地人低价抢工作机会的批评

有能力在和外地人的竞争中不吃亏的人，其智商就决定了他不会片面的因为别人的“来自”而歧视别人，因为这种智商的人会看出问题的深层次根源在哪里。只有自身智商不到和外地人竞争的人，才会整天硬盘硬盘的成为一个极端地域主义者。

一些上海人，除了鄙视外地人带来的大量犯罪因素和因为与自己生活习惯不同而带来的所谓对环境的“污染”（主要是些蹲着吃饭之类的问题，说到底其实就是个观念问题，不是大是大非问题）外，还有个讨厌外地人的重要理由，就是外地人拉低了上海人的平均工资，他们宣称，同样的公种，自己开价5000，一个外地人开价2000，结果就被这个一点都不懂的外地人抢去了工作，然后自己还会啊q一样的自慰一下：这个公司有的苦了，找了个什么都不会的外地人。

这个降低平均工资的说法，是不成立的。
我工作的第一个行业，工资很低的，都是上海人。
后来换行业了，都是外地人居多的，大家的工资都在使劲往上拉。
后来再跳回原行业，我又能把原行业的工资极大的拉高了。

问题就在于，有含金量的工种，不存在被拉低的问题，反而由于高素质人才的大量引进，形成一个行业的气候，让整个行业良性发展，工资可以被不断拉高。

自己用脑子想一想，一个阿猫阿狗都会做的工作，你开5000，外地人开2000也能做的，合理不合理吧。（至于自慰的外地人不会做之类的理由。。。。。2000元的工作有谁不能花几天时间学会的？）

但是到了一些高端行业，比如芯片设计，it咨询顾问，高端的软件设计，哪个行业不是因为大量的外地人进来后导致整个行业的收入水准水涨船高的？处于这些行业的人自己扪心自问一下，这些行业的上海人的收入和上海平均工资的收入之间的差距，是现在大，还是以前大。

一些低端行业（后面的内容希望大家理性对待，不要生气），比如外企文员，helpdesk，前台这种，10年前可能4，5千，但是现在都只有2，3千了。为什么？不是因为外地人多了，而是因为这些行业就是只值这么点工钱。以前的价格是虚高的。

10年前，一个做芯片设计的工程师的收入可能和helpdesk的收入差不多。但是现在，由于竞争机制的引进，整个行业的高端或是低端的定位给定位下来了，不该高的下去了，该高的上去了。竞争，还事物以其本来面目。

很简单的说，就是自己民工的水平，就不要奢望高工的收入。

随便举两个例子：

5年前，货代公司的操作，4，5千是基本的，现在2，3千都大把人要来干。
5年前，半导体公司的工程师，也就5，6千的样子。后来来了大量的所谓硬盘人，整个行业发展起来了，现在这类职位的工资基本在8，9千以上了。
一个是操作，一个是工程师，两者的技术含量完全不一样的。一个在大专混3年就可以了，一个要在本科认真学4年，很多人甚至要硕士认真学3年，工作后还要不断充电学习，结果拿着一样的工资，合理吗？

认为外地人占了自己资源的人，为什么不到外地去占外地人的资源呢？外地有资源让来自外地的和本地的小老百姓来占吗？这个国家的发展的问题到底在哪里，有智商的人一定是能够想明白的。
这些朋友把这个问题想明白了，对外地人的仇恨问题就迎刃而解了。

讨论下，电影要如何来看？

这是篇老文章了，我很久前写的，现在把它找出来，在这里再贴出来：

我觉得，看电影是种寻求感觉的行动。比如，有的片子让你的暴力需求得到满足，有的片子让你觉得感动，有的片子让你jj变硬。甚至，有的片子让你恐惧，有的片子让你恶心。
只要能达到这样感觉的片子，就是好片。
比 如说，最近很多人在讨论不能说的秘密里面的修正液的镜头不合理。而我要说，这个镜头恰恰是整个片子的精髓。我们不需要讨论这个镜头是否合理，这没有意义， 因为这个片子的目的不是为了让你锻炼逻辑推理能力。这个片子的目的是为了让人感动！当第二次修正液的字迹在20年前的路小雨桌子上写出来的时候，你是否感 动了？你的眼泪是否要奔出来了？如果是的，那么这个镜头的目的就达到了。至于他是否合理，这根本不是编剧和导演（就是那个伟大的周杰伦）需要考虑的问题。
我 的意思换一个说法，其实是说，看电影，是一种感觉，感觉达到了，这个片子就算是可以的。优秀的电影不是因为他的逻辑很严密，而是他比其他的同类型电影更能 满足你的某一种或者某几种需求。比如魔戒，之所以是优秀的影片，并不是因为他逻辑严密，符合事实（根本就符合个屁的事实），而是因为他比其他任何的片子都 更加能让人激动，感动，爽！
这就是我所认为的观影的真谛！看电影就是要这样看的。

插播一下，什么是烂片？烂片就是让人看了半天还味同嚼蜡，没有任何兴趣的片子----虽然这部片子可能.....非常非常的.....符合逻辑。

看电影的真正乐趣，在于享受一种创作者交给你的感觉。看电影的乐趣绝不在于找出一些所谓的逻辑上的漏洞。
如果舍本求末，热衷于追求一些所谓的逻辑漏洞，而忽视了对影片本身传达的感觉的关注，就会大大的失去了观影的乐趣。
大 部分人看起来都很好看的影片，在某些思维钻牛角尖的人眼中，可能就是部让他非常痛苦的不知所云的烂片。而大多数人认为的烂片（即我前面说的逻辑合理，剧情 无聊的影片），这种人也会理所当然的体验不到任何快感。因为她们会认为符合逻辑是一种基本要求，而不是一种惊喜，更不是一种情感的体验。
到最后，这种人根本没有感受到观看影片的乐趣。既然如此，要么改变看电影的方式，学会体验观影的乐趣，要么就不要看电影了，免得浪费自己的宝贵时间。

转帖：介绍一些粗俗英语的用法（+18以下禁入）

主题：介绍一些粗俗英语的用法（+18以下禁入）
收藏本贴 | 好友分享 | 推广拿分点击:7190 | 回复:7 | 标签:
FUCK篇

单独使用可以作为无任何意义的语气词。不过也可以放在动词和介词的词组中间应用以加强语气，比如get fuck out，shut fuck up，一般所跟随的介词以元音开头效果更好，一气呵成，不着痕迹。

be fucked
严格的语法上来说呢，这个就是fuck的被动语态，8过实际应用中只要不是很顺心的状况呢，都可以用。一般对人不对事。有人倒霉了，基本上就是he's fucked了。

fucking
语法中有动词进行式做形容词的用法。这个fuck一加上ing的话就是包治百病天下无双了……基本上所有的名词都可以形容。最为顺口的就是fucking asshole了。

fuck you
最常见的用法，矛头直指对方，快意恩仇。发音简单一学就会，一句在口可以走遍美国了。如果跟对方没什么计较的话fuck哪个也都可以，fuck him, fuck her, fuck them, fuck the states, fuck the world, 不过总是没有fuck you来得理直气壮言简意赅。

fuck me
嘿嘿，这个，一般只在特定场合特定行为中由特定人物表达。简单来说，就是女性叫床专用……各位同学大家知道就可以了，这个，不用反复操练的……

fuck up
搞砸了，一般对事不对人，类似表达可以用screw up。

fuck off
收声闭嘴之极度表达。以程度类推效果大于hold your tounge大于shut up大于watch your mouth。

fuck with sb.
对某人找茬，故意戏弄某人。这个……大家千万不要误解为与某人XX……

fuck you very much
这里的fuck you就比较活络了。不看语气和表情就很难判断对方的意图。因为他很有可能是在用另外一种方式说“thank you very much”。

motherfucker
跟老外比起来我们中华民族泱泱大国就文明多了。就算问候对方家长也是身体力行，或者“X你妈”或者“X你大爷”，老外比较懒，这些事情也都交给被骂的家伙去办了……

"Fuck" 是现代英语中最强烈,最有争议的粗语之一,这个词可能也是世界上最著名的亵渎语但何时这个词从一个友好用法变成亵渎用法却仍然无法解释一些证明显示,在一些英语为母语的地区,这个词直到17世纪才有一种攻击和亵渎的含义; 而另外一些证明却表明,早在16世纪的英国,这个词已经变成粗语因此一些诸如牛津大英字典的权威资料仍然无法确定这个粗语的来源,但倾向于相信撒克逊人(英国人)起源说,然后再流传到英国殖民地,再到全世界

在现代英语中,"Fuck"是一种高度冒犯性的用词,是最为严厉的4字母词"Fuck" 原意就是XXXXX(操,干),但它往往被用作一个咒骂语和语气加强词一些"Fuck"原意的例子有:

"Let s fuck." (让我们操吧)
"That was a good fuck." (那真是一次美妙的XXXXX)
"I cant believe shes fucking him!" (我不能相信她正在操他!)

"I fucked my teacher!" (我干了我老师)

其他则是一些粗直语用法,但这些用法往往牵涉到性,譬如XXXXXX(fuck you)或者*(fuck yourself).

"Fuck you!" or "Go fuck yourself!" (我不喜欢你,快滚开)
"He"s a dumb fuck." (他是个白痴)
"Sorry, I fucked up your computer." (不好意思,我弄坏了你的电脑)
"He s pretty fucked up." (他心理或者心情不稳定)
"I fucked up on this test." (我这次测验做的很糟)
"Lets fuck around for a couple hours." (让我们浪费2个小时好了)
"Im fucked." (结果)
"What the fuck!" (到底刚才发生了什么?)
"Shut the fuck up!" (闭嘴)
"Im so fucked up right now." (我已经烂醉或者被药物搞的晕晕乎乎了)
其他一些粗直用法则没有任何冒犯或者牵涉到性的意思而且当这个词被移除之后,这句句子的语意仍然保持不变譬如:

"None of your fucking business!" (不关你"鸟"事)
"Un-fucking-believable!" (真难以置信!)
"What a fucking great day outside!" (外边的天气真"他妈的"的好)
"Shut the fuck up!" (你他妈的闭嘴)
"Abso-fuckin-lutley!" "绝对是!"
"Hey!, Why dont you go outside and play Hide-N-Go-Fuck-Yourself!" "嘿,为什么你不出去自己一个人玩?
"Fuck!" (当一些不快的事情发生)
"Hes a great fucker!" (他是一个非常好的家伙,并不意思他是一个非常好的性伙伴)
在最后一个例子中,"Fucker"这个词被用作一种赞赏,但这种用法并不常见譬如: "You are a smart fucker (你是一个聪明的家伙)". 但正因为这种用法的粗鲁及不明确性, 除非对方是一个你非常熟悉的朋友,这个用法还是不要用的好因为有可能你的赞赏会被误解

"Fuck"这个词也是非常多样化的,譬如:

"Fucking fuck those fucking fuckers!" ("忘记那些另人讨厌的家伙吧.") "Fucking fuckers fucking fucked!" ("它被弄坏了")

第二个例子很好的演示了这个词的多样性,它是一个名词,一个冠词,一个现在分词和一个形容词另外一个可以显示其多样性的例子是Mary Prankster 的歌:Mercyfuck (1998)

I wish I could fuck all my sorrow away
And fuck til the dawn of the next fucking day
Fuck the chorus and verse, fuck the pain getting worse
Fuck it all til I burn


I wish I could fuck all of you til you see
Im the worst fuck-up in all history
Fuck your image and mine, fuck your limp valentine
Fuck it all til I learn
再补充一下"Fuck"这个词的常用法:

动词
可以当作一个及物动词:
He fucked her. (他操了她.)
或者不及物动词:
They fucked all night. (他们干了整个晚上)
或者对象非人的用法:
Im not going down there, fuck that, dude! (我不会下去的,操那东西,哥们!)
Im not doing that. Fuck outta here! (我不会做的,忘记它吧!)

名词
She is a real fuck. (没有特定的侮辱)
She is a good fuck. (特定的指向XXXXXX)
Eat my fuck. (是一种侮辱)
We had a good fuck last night. (作为一个性行为)
That was a total cluster fuck. (很多出错的事的当中一个)
Oh my fuck! (表明一种惊讶的意思)
Im being sent to Bumfuckegypt. (很有可能出自一个军事源头)

感叹词
Fuck作为感叹词时一般表示一种惊讶,不满或者愤怒的意思, 如:
Fuck! A punctured tire!
也可以表示一种正向的惊讶:
Fuck! Theyve hacked this computer! (噢!他们黑了这台电脑!)
Fuck! This is the best movie EVER! (噢!这是历史上最好的电影!)

现在分词
作为现在分词,Fucking (fuckin) 往往用来加强一个动词或者名词的语气它的正向意义往往多于其反向意义如:
My fucking boss made me work all weekend. (我那天杀的老板让我加整个周末的班)
She is fuckin hot. (她真他妈的性感)

除此之外,Fuck的现在分词有时被插在一个词的中间这种用法叫作感叹插入语. 这种fucking插入法的规则是: "fucking"只能插入到一个多音节词的韵脚之间, 例如:
that was abso-fuckin-lutely cool! (那真他妈的酷!)
In-fucking-credible (难以置信)
fan-fucking-tastic (真棒)
un-fucking-believable (无法相信)
congratu-fucking-lations (祝贺祝贺)
whoop-dee-fucking-doo (%@@#@#)

过去分词
fuck的过去分词意思一样完全无用的,被损坏的,或者被搞糟的事物在形容一个人的时候,它表示一种筋疲力尽或者烂醉的意思 譬如:
The hard drive crashed, so now the database is fucked. (硬盘坏了所以现在数据库也被损坏了)
Your engines fucked because you forgot to change the oil! (你的引擎坏了,因你忘记换油了)
Now that the electricity is out, your computer is fucked. (没电了,你的电脑没用了)
You were completely fucked last night. (你昨晚真是糟糕透了)

动词短语
"To fuck up"意思是破坏,"to be fucked up"往往意思烂醉,或者更正规的意思是身体或者心理上的伤害(常用于美国) 如:
The bouncer really fucked up that guy who kept causing trouble. (那个保镖把那个老是滋事的家伙打的够呛)
My sisters been really fucked up since her fiancé dumped her. 我的姐姐(妹妹)惨极了,因为她的未婚夫抛弃了她
当在形容事物的时候,"to be fucked up"意思是这件事物是精神上或者其他方面上错误的
She stole my wallet while I was passed out; thats so fucked up! (在我走出去的时候,她偷了我的钱包;那绝对是件错误的事)
"To fuck over" 意思背叛,或者通常不讨人喜欢的行为
Yeah, he slept with my girlfriend. I cant believe he fucked me over like that! (他睡了我GF,我真的无法相信他如此背叛我!)
I got fucked over at work today – they promoted my assistant instead of me. (今天我在上班的时候被玩了: 他们提升了我助理,而不是我!)

混成词
F的发音有时被提高语调,以表示强烈的辱骂
Thats fugly (fucking ugly). (那真他妈的丑)
You fucktard (fucking retard). (你他妈的智障)
You flooser! (fucking loser) (你他妈的失败者)

讲演语气
Fuck有时在讲演时被用作一种填补,用法很象um..., 或者like..
Her name is, fuck... What was her name again? (她的名字是,恩,她的名字是什么?)
the fuck 常用来加强语气，类似于“到底”、“究竟”、“the heck”、“on
earth”
、“the hell”等，在疑问词后。

例1 熟人间的问候： "How the fuck are ya?"
例2 疑问： "What the fuck is（are）.......?"
例3 不满： "What the fuck is going on here?"
例4 迷惘： "Where the fuck are we."
例5 担心： "Let's get the fuck out of here."
例6 怀疑： "How the fuck did you do that?"
get fucked , be fucked 被骗；遇到麻烦
例7： "I got fucked by the car dealer."
例8： "I guess I'm fucked now."
Fucked again 表示绝望，“完了……”
Fuck it 屈从，放弃
例9： "Oh, fuck it!"
Fuck you ! 不用多解释了
Fuck me. 表示厌恶 类似“sth disgusts me”
fucking 类似 the fuck ，作加强语气，不过还可作形容词，表示一些不爽的事物

例10： "I don't understand this fucking business!"
例11：根本不想 　"I didn't fucking do it."
例12：骂人反击　 "Up your fucking arse!"
"He's a fucking asshole."
例13：当然也有表示高兴的时候，类似于“我他妈……” "I fucking couldn't
be ha
ppier."
例14：放在一个词的中间（注意这种用法哦，国内较少见）增强语气：
"UNFUCKINGBELI
EVABLE!"
例15：表示时间 "It's five fucking thirty."
Fuck off. “滚开” 类似“go away”
Fuck around. 胡闹 “Quit ye fucking around!”
Fuck up. 弄砸了 “How did you fuck your exam up?”
Fuck with 干涉 类似于“interfere with”
be fucked out 疲劳的，类似于“exhausted”
fuck 单独的用法：
例16：几乎 "I know fuck all about it."
例17： 谁在乎过我了？"Who really gives a fuck, anyhow?"
　
FUCK 一词并不邪恶，没有一些女生想象的那么坏，它在美国人的口语中出现的频
率很高，就如同我们常说的“我KAO”。下面列举了一些名人说话中用过的FUCK：
　　
广岛市市长　　 "What the fuck was that?"　　
Custer 上将 "Where did all these fucking Indians come from?"
泰坦尼克号船长 "Where the fuck is all this water coming from?"
约翰.列农 "That‘s not a real fucking gun."
尼克森总统 "Who‘s gonna fucking find out?"
航天飞机的指挥官 "Let the fucking woman drive."
爱因斯坦"Any fucking idiot could understand that."
毕加索 "It does so fucking look like her!"
沃尔特.迪斯尼 "Fuck a duck."
艾德门德.希拉里 "Why?- Because its fucking there!"
约翰.肯尼迪　　"I need this parade like I need a fucking hole in my
head."

perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English Language today is the word "Fuck".
也许英文中最有趣的单词之一就是今天要讲的Fuck。

Out of all of the English words that begin with the letter "F", Fuck is the only word that is refer to as the F-Word.
在所有以F开头的英文单词中，Fuck是唯一会被称为“那个以F开头的单词”。

It"s the one magical word just by its sound can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love.
这是一个神奇的词，仅仅通过它的发音就可以表达痛苦、愉悦、仇恨和喜爱。

Fuck, as most words in the English language is derived from German the word "frichen" which means "to strike".
Fuck正如大多数英语单词一样，来源于一个德语单词"Frichen"，这个单词的意思是“击打”。

In English Fuck falls into many grammatical categories.
在英语中，Fuck又有多种用法。

As a transitive verb , for instance, "John Fucked Shirley"; as a intransitive verb, "Shirley Fucks. "
作为一个及物动词，例如，John**Shirley；作为一个不及物动词，Shirley***。

Its meanings not always sexual.
它的意思并不总是和性有关。

It can be used as an adjective such as "John"s doing all the Fucking work".
它可以作为一个形容词，例如：John正在做所有*该死的工作。

As an adverb, "Shirley talks too Fucking much."
作为一个副词，Shirley的话真是太*多了。

As an adverb enhancing and adjective, "Shirley is Fucking beautiful".
作为副词或形容词时如果用升调读出，Shirley真是太*漂亮了。

As a noun, "I don"t give a Fuck".
作为一个名词，我才不*管那么多。

As part of a word, "abso-Fucking-lutely" or "in-Fucking-credible".
作为词语的一部分，如*完全的，*难以置信的。

And as almost every word in a sentence "Fuck the Fucking Fuckers".
也可以被放在同一个句子中，**这个**的**

As you must realise there aren"t too many words with the versatility of Fuck, as in these examples describing situations such as:
你应该注意到了，没有太多的单词像Fuck这样有多种功能，在如下的例子中描述不同的情况，如：

Fraud : "I got Fucked by the car dealer."
受骗：我被车贩子骗了。

Dismay: "Ah Fuck it" .
沮丧：我*

Trouble: "I guess I"m really Fucked now" .
麻烦：我猜我这次真的栽了。

Aggression: "Don"t Fuck with me body" .
挑衅：小子，不关你的事。

Difficulty: "I don"t understand this Fucking question"
困难：我不明白这个*问题。

Inquiry: "Who the Fuck was that?"
质疑：那*是谁？

Dissatisfaction: "I don"t like what the Fuck is going on here"
不满：我不喜欢这里正在发生的$%$&%^&

Incompetence: "He"s a Fuck up"
无奈：他就是一个**

Dismissal: "Why don"t you go outside and play hide and go Fuck yourself?"
打发：你为什么不出去$^$^#^#

I"m sure you can think of much more examples.
我肯定你还可以想到更多例子。

With all of these multipurpose applications, how can anyone be offended when you use the word?
在各种各样的情况下，怎么用这个词得罪别人呢？

We say use this unique flexible word more often in your daily speech.
我们可以在日常对话中更多的使用这个唯一的多样的词。

It will identify the quality of your character immediately.
它能立即让你显得有性格。

Say it loudly and proudly——FUCK YOU!

三鹿的三聚氰胺事件是否是阴谋？

关注现在的几条新闻：三鹿要破产，负债17亿；当地政府愿意拨款帮助三鹿赔偿受害人；三鹿的很多分支机构已经将三鹿的优良资产剥离掉另立门户（cctv语）

这几条新闻非常让人有想法。作为国内数一数二的行业老大，为何一夜之间就这么缺钱了？据说三鹿和经销商都是一手交钱一手交货的，和供应商都是90天帐期，而且作为业内老大它的经营也从来没有出现过问题，为何短短数月时间就缺了这么多钞票？最重要的是，经销商的所有退货款都是自行垫付的，三鹿本身根本没有向经销商支付过这些退货款。所以说，他的资金在没有任何大的支出的情况下，突然变成了负债17亿，实在是值得人玩味玩味。

第二个疑问，是三聚氰胺事件一出来的时候，我就一直在怀疑的，那就是为什么别人家的三聚氰胺加的那么少，而三鹿要加这么多呢？而且是明显多到了连吃几个月就能发病的状况，这种行为简直是无异于企业的自杀行为！为什么它以前不加这么多，而是仅仅最近几个月要加这么多呢？蹊跷啊蹊跷！当时很多人揶揄说是三鹿负责加三聚氰胺的漏斗坏了之类，那看起来也不过是纯属玩笑罢了。

把事情前后串起来，我突然领悟到，这可能又是一个惊天大阴谋！

各位读者想一想，有什么办法能在1，2年内把十几二十亿的企业资产据为己有？或者至少在一个小团体范围内据为己有？

先故意把企业业务搞垮，然后乘乱把几十亿的资金转移出去，或者反过来，先把几十亿的资金转移出去，再把企业搞垮，就像现在的情况一样，反正搞垮了有政府拨款出钱买单。大家觉得这个做法怎么样？这样就能合理的解释不合理的三聚氰胺含量了。

应该就是这样的，有人，或者某个小团体，为了把三鹿公司短期内掏空，把所有债务剥离，留下大量的现金，厂房，应收款，而恶意增加三聚氰胺的含量，让三鹿东窗事发无法正常经营，然后乘乱破产，最后这个人或者小团体攒取的几十亿资金就在混乱的破产流程中再也理不清头绪，找不到去向。

是不是三鹿那个被抓起来的董事长干的事情？我看不像，她不过是个替罪羊罢了。而且她在事情发生后就迅速被逮捕，实在非常符合替罪羊的一贯表现。

应该是企业的高管，其他想夺权董事和部分当地干部联合起来干这件事情的。因为首先要有企业的人能够在第一线接触产品，以及转移资金，其次是要有很多其他分支机构来接受三鹿的资产，最后就是要有人能够帮他们放行，将如此巨额数量的资金和资产办理好手续，转移到其他企业，甚至转移到国外，熟悉我国金融制度的人应该知道，转移几十亿的资金，不是件企业自己就能说了算的事情。并且，要能在数月内，非常快速，迅雷不及掩耳的批准企业的破产申请，以便将巨额资金和资产的转移迅速乘乱掩盖，整个三鹿事件发生到最后的批准破产（据我所知申请破产后还要做彻底的审计之后才能批准的吧？），短短几十天时间，真是走出路世界级的速度，顺利的让人刮目相看。

当然，更重要的是，要能在把三鹿全部掏空后，有人来解决这些受害者家属的赔偿，现在从新闻来看，当地政府已经决定为此埋单。可是政府的钱，归根到底还是在用纳税人的钱为此事买单，只要受害人家属得到赔偿了，就不会有人做深入追究，那么这几十亿的亏空到底是怎么产生的，就没有人回来关心了。

至于那些经销商垫付的退货款和供应商的欠款......只能祝他们好运了。

为什么董事长老太太事情一发生就被抓了，负责质量控制和采购的人却没有被抓起来？仔细想想，这是个非常奇怪的地方。会不会因为董事长是其他人和机构侵吞三鹿的绊脚石，所以要在第一时间把她抓起来，以便其他人可以安心的转移资产和资金？她作为企业的创始人，对整个企业或许还是有点感情的，所以，最后的结局只能是被其他利益瓜分者抛弃的绊脚石。


整个三聚氰胺事件，会不会又是一个大型企业改制过程中的新型方法的实验呢？即让老板们赚足钞票，让百姓为改制埋单？现在谁也无法说清，这盘很大的棋，后人自有评述。

60年大饥荒和本次经济危机其实是一样的

都是对某一行业过度投资后资金断链，各行业彻底破产。只不过当时是由于大家都在大练钢铁没有人种田从农业开始，现在是房地产占用过多资金从金融行业开始

全套淘宝大卡山寨装备终于收集齐啦～

绒线外套，“G-star”的，130元
真牛皮皮带，“CK”的，50元
牛仔裤，“D&G”的，100元
感觉质量都还算不错，式样也还可以。
全部淘宝，全部大卡

中国要安然度过经济危机，关键还是要靠台湾人

我们要了解的一个事实就是，安然度过经济危机，就必须提振老百姓对日用消费品的消费诉求，也就是说，关系到老百姓日常生活的实体产品的制造业必须要能够存活下来，并不断制造产品让老百姓来消费。
对广大10亿不炒股的中国百姓来说，金融行业是否景气，与他们无关，更不会影响到他们对消费的愿望。他们关心的是，自己的工资能不能正常发，外面的东西是不是便宜，自己的工厂能不能长治久安让自己一直稳定的工作下去。
而对于这些小老百姓来说，家中的主要劳动力大多在台湾人的企业中干活，比如鞋厂，服装厂，电子厂等，这些才是中国有品质的产品，有保障的收入的主要来源。如果这些台湾老板经营的好，这些主要劳动力的收入就能保证，他们全家的消费也就能得到保证。

我们自己也有自己的制造企业，但是大多产品品质无法保证，或者业主自己也朝不保夕或者涉及经济问题或者企业变成管理层大量搜刮国家投资中饱私囊的工具，对我们的国家来说，这样管理不规范，目标不正确，运营不合理的制造企业，不过是提高民怨，促进社会不和谐的途径而已。
就像台湾人的企业不会出胖老师，而我国知名企业宝钢却会出现胖老师这样的人一样，当一个企业的非真正拥有者却有了指挥一切企业资源的权利，它就会滥用这种权利，产生大量的不和谐状况。用台湾人的话来说，这就叫做是没有ownership。
至于欧美企业，其实欧美管理层也大多被架空，成为国内高管行使类似国企的花招的壳子而已。
只有台湾企业，其高管是深谙中国人的品性，却又带着科学的管理方法来管理自己的工厂，这样才是事半功倍，有效率的管理，可以提高了企业的稳定程度，提高了企业的存活的可能性。
我们可以看到，出了那么多消费品产品质量问题，国产企业和欧美企业基本都逃不过，但是你有听到过台湾人的消费品有质量问题吗？

所以说，仔细考虑下来，中国度过经济危机，关键是要看实业型企业的努力，而在实业型企业当中，又主要靠台湾人企业。

每个中国人，都应该看看自己在《浪潮》中的角色

这么精彩的影片，我居然刚刚才看，实在是羞愧啊。

说实话，在剧情和表演上来说，这部片子我认为，总体上来说只能拿到4颗星，但是部分章节，特别是最后部分，以及部分角色的表演，比如那个拿枪的学生，是非常出彩的。

但是对每一个中国人来说，最有意义的是，我们在这场游戏中，扮演了什么样的一个角色。独裁体制中的几乎没有种人，每一种行为模式，都可以在影片中找到对应的代表。

这部影片的寓言意义和隐藏在故事之中的深刻反独裁性，令人击节，再加上优秀的表演，起承转合之间，一个令人汗毛直竖的对独裁体制对人性摧残的揭露就展现在了人的面前。
最恐怖的是，很多人会由内心而发的喜欢这种被摧残的感觉，甚至有人依赖于这种恐怖的摧残自己的独裁体制，他们需要独裁，只有独裁的空气才能让他们生存。他们在摧残之下爱上了这种体制。

没有看过本片的人，建议仔细看过后再来投票

我不知道这里怎么做投票，所以在这几个网站放了投票：
http://www.kaixin001.com/app/app.php?aid=1016&url=detail.php&vid=2727550&uid=4284109

http://www3.eastgame.net/read.php?tid=1317490


http://club.pchome.net/topic_1_15_3138920__.html

一厂商和我们讲了一个内幕，和原高院院长肖扬有关

原高院院长肖扬不是传闻贪污1500亿被抓了么，我们的一个厂商也遇到他们的勒索的
商务部把一个半导体常用的主要原材料归为禁止出口，导致国内的厂商在今年年底后就无法出口，而且很多半导体企业都是在加工园区和保税区的，这些企业也无法再购买这些原材料了。
后来几个大厂商联合起来，去海关总署和商务部告状，问国家这不是要搞死半导体行业吗？到了北京，就有内幕人士提点他们，让他们找xx律师事务所，律师费交好，自然可以让商务部改相关决定的。
几个企业不服气啊，没有交。
后来不是高院院长肖扬被抓了嘛，于是这几个企业就再联合几个地方海关的关长，再到海关总署和商务部告状，现在基本已经确定年底前会对这个主要原材料开禁。
注意，这个原材料无毒无害，食用之后都不会对身体有害，而且使用的都是石油副产品，和纺织行业差不多绿色。

天听了这个故事，真的蛮震撼的

提醒个事情，去取款机取钱要小心啊

晚上想从一张银行卡倒钱到另外一张卡。
开车到小区外面的atm机器那里。停下来前就感觉不对劲，并排的两台atm机器旁边蹲着两个非常待业青年味的年轻男子，在左顾右盼不知道干嘛。两台机器前各有一个同样年龄的待业青年味男子，我感觉蹊跷啊，就在车上看了会儿再下去的。
然后我就慢慢走过去，用余光发现蹲在地上的男子貌似在看我。
然后站在atm机器3，4米外，没有接近，站了几秒，那两个取钱的男子貌似没有动作。其实从我在车上看到他们到现在起码1分多钟了。我想取钱么总归也差不多可以结束了吧？
可是那两个取钱的还是没有结束，我就非常快的疾步走到他们后面，发现一个在打电话，一个在atm机器上不知道干什么。可能看到我突然走过去，就匆匆忙忙的按了几下。然后我又疾步走开3，4米，回头一看他取出貌似1张100元。然后又左顾右盼的慢吞吞走开。
我心说不妙，马上拍屁股跑到车里面，启动，跑路。


做男人，卵子要滑！我现在强烈的怀疑，他们4个人是一帮的。如果我到那个空出的atm机器上取钱，他们就会围上来抢劫我的。

天哪，我终于知道为什么熊猫会这么稀少了！

大家注意看他的小鸡鸡，看他龟头！看到了没有！细的就是一条线嘛！整个阴茎也是根大头细的三角形！各位男性看看你自己的龟头，又粗，又大，而且肯定比阴茎粗大！
大家好好想想，做爱的时候，男人的龟头是不是快感的源泉啊！龟头大么神经多，接触到的刺激也多，也就更加爽！同理可证，龟头小快感就小，就不会特别热衷于做爱！
而且，三角形的形状，也使得他很容易滑出女熊猫的阴道！甚至有可能稍微动作大一点就滑出来了！这样就会导致不容易受孕！
你看，熊猫首先是做爱的快感不高，不会整天想着去做爱，其次是做爱了也很难射对地方！
你说这能不成为稀有动物嘛！看看猫狗，阴茎就明显圆柱状了很多，龟头的体积也相应大了很多，他们繁衍的多热闹啊！

关于黄静向华硕索赔500万被指敲诈并关押10个月，大家看看我的意见

事情原委：
http://club.pchome.net/topic_1_15_3064853__.html

我个人的意见：
1.所谓惩罚性赔偿于法无据
2.即使有法律允许惩罚性赔偿，也需要建立在人身损害的立场上。（熟悉工业生产的人都知道，次品是再精密的生产控制都无法避免的现象，如果允许一有质量问题企业就要陪死，那全天下的人就都不要来生产东西了。）
3.即使要提出惩罚性赔偿，也需要在打官司的时候提出，而不是私底下提出，特别是她是用假身份提出的，这点是非常可疑。

我个人认为，华硕不过是想让她不要来烦了，叫110把她带走而已，这种事情我们遇到很讨厌的人常做的吧？但是没想到人家派出所一查就查出是用假身份的，于是这个事情就被华硕假戏真做，搞不清楚了。
现在放她出来，我看也是人家故意放她一马，如果严格说起来的话，她的行为是很难说不是敲诈的。

大家不要拿美国人的例子出来，因为美国的高价赔偿是建立在严重和不可逆的人身伤害的基础上的。你如果只是产品质量问题，那就陪产品，如果只是易拉罐给你的 手指头划一个口子，并且没有精神病医生证明因为这个口子而导致你终生神经脆弱的话，也就陪你点医药费误工费。别以为在美国就可以狮子大开口了，如果因为一 点点的产品缺陷美国公司就要给美国公民天价赔偿，美国的所有公司都早就全部倒闭了。

最关键是大家要搞清楚，这个女人一开始就用了假身份，在加上完全与法无据的高额赔偿，完全可以作为敲诈来处理了。

大家要注意，这个女人的手法很专业，嘴脸很丑恶，手段很猖狂

对于骂华硕的人，我就问一句话，你们公司生产了个价值2万元的次品，在没有造成别人任何伤害的情况下对方要求4000万的赔偿，你给不给？他们还每天上门来纠缠，你会不会打110让110处理？
至于110把他们拿进去之后，查实身份是不是很正常的一件事情？
如果在这种情况下，警察发现他们的身份非常可疑，是不是可以当作诈骗罪来调查？

用脑子来思考一下这个问题。

就像我到永乐家电里面去吵架，吵得有理有据，对方还得满脸堆笑的主动把2000多元钱还给我，为什么？难道是因为我有背景，我是太子党，我是洋大人？
都不是，就四个字：有理有据

另外，下面是关于其男友的一篇文章，以作佐证，大家不要太善良，被人骗了还不知道：
转帖：

请网友擦亮眼睛,不要被人利用,"看黄静男友周成宇何许人也"
大陆互联网卷包第一人周成宇再遭起诉

日前，曾因“中华网笔记本频道倒闭”一案被誉为“大陆互联网卷包第一人”的周成宇在因涉嫌敲诈勒索华硕公司500万美元的“惩罚性赔偿”被捕9个月后再次在看守所里被海淀区检察院提起公诉，这次的罪名是涉嫌票据诈骗，海淀法院已经受理了此案。

　　福无双至，祸不单行。现年28岁的周成宇是重庆人，档案中已经拥有数次入狱的经历。周成宇号称拥有大学学历，曾任北京爱极信息技术公司的法人代表。据 海淀检察院起诉书指控，2005年1月至4月间，周成宇在任爱极公司法人代表期间，虚构与北京华网汇通技术服务有限公司网站频道合作协议，采用空头支票方 式，在海淀区骗取夏某2万元。2005年4月底，周成宇又先后两次因采用开空头支票和提供笔记本电脑抵押的方式，骗取高某人民币7.2万元，之后周成宇逃 匿。

　　从上诉指控中，我们不难看出，周成宇这次是折在了赖以成名的“大陆互联网卷包第一人”这一案上。周在中华网笔记本频道担任总监职务期间，采用虚开空头 支票等方式，骗取近十万人民币。而另据不完全统计，笔记本频道上线两个月后周成宇失踪时，拖欠近30位员工工资总计约20万元，造成投资人损失约30万 元，另有相关合作方的设备投入和业务款若干。这里，还没有计算因为笔记本频道突然瘫痪而给中华网带来的损失。

　　而周成宇已然数度“进宫”，他曾因犯盗窃罪于1998年被重庆法院判处有期徒刑二年半。刑满后，他来到北京，又因在顶尖移动科技(北京)有限公司任职时经济诈骗被起诉，后被取保候审。在取保候审状态下周与中华网合作，组建了中华网笔记本频道。

　　最近一次让周成宇身陷囹圄至今的案子也曾经轰动一时，2006年2月，周成宇伙同龙某以华硕笔记本电脑使用英特尔测试版CPU为由，以向新闻媒体曝光 此事作为谈判砝码，向华硕公司提出高达500万美元的“惩罚性赔偿”。双方数次谈判未果后，华硕公司报警。因涉嫌敲诈勒索罪，2006年4月，周成宇与龙 某被正式批捕，周成宇被押至今，在看守所中也不得安生，陈年旧案被翻出来，如果所有罪名全部成立，周成宇将面临法律的严厉制裁。

　　有关这位引起无数纷争的周成宇先生的案情的进一步进展，泡泡网将继续给与关注。

http://tech.163.com/06/0412/14/2EH13P0J000915BF.html

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/174/174515.shtml

http://tech.sina.com.cn/n/2006-04-13/0913901821.shtml

仔细研究一下这个周成宇。。。会发现很多有意思的事情

近一月来内环房价总结

简单的帮有些逻辑混乱的人理一下次贷危机的思路

最近开始比较忙了没什么时间长篇大论。
简单的说一下次贷的过程，以及为什么经济学家普遍认为救市行为只能给下跌行情火上浇油，以及金融危机到经济危机的转化过程，由于比较忙，所以就不展开分析，稍有金融和经济基础的朋友自然一看就明：
-》房价不断高涨
-》次贷下的房贷者不断参与全额贷款买房
-》继续推高房价
-》房贷者继续跟进，房地产市场进一步繁荣，开始有大量的平民以次贷的方式购入房产进行炒房
-》越来越多的人，其每月最低还款额额接近其收入，高到一定程度后，就产生极大的还贷压力
-》某些情况下，这些人偶然的失业，或者需要其他紧急消费，于是只能停止还贷
-》坏账开始产生，银行开始回收房产
-》由于银行开始处理这些房产，于是房价开始波动
-》利用次贷方式炒房子的平民开始短期内无法出手房子，出现还贷压力，导致坏账增多
-》于是更大量的次贷房被回收，为消灭坏账，房贷公司加紧出货，进一步扰乱市场，出现单边下滑
-》房屋在下降通道内几乎无法出手，虽然美国是地球的中心，但是炒房团不是印钞机，钞票也已经用的差不多了。公司的信用评级由于坏账的不断增多和新业务的不断减少，开始下降，同时股价和各类金融衍生品的价格也开始下跌
-》于是投资房贷公司的机构开始产生损失，投资人开始恐慌，造成整体市场不景气
-》开始有大量投资机构在股票和各类衍生品上的投资缩水到其发行债券面值以下，即开始出现资不抵债的情况
-》资不抵债的投行开始倒闭申请破产保护，暂时停止对债券的承兑承诺

======》至此，金融危机已经达成

继续：
-》市场恐慌，越来越多的人想变现，股价进一步下跌
-》应金融界的强烈要求，愚蠢的政府不顾经济学界的一致反对，开始救市（比如说7000亿救市计划）
-》大量的投资人开始觉得有希望了，于是进去抄底
-》更大量的投资人开始伺机出货变现
-》政府进一步出台救市措施
-》前面的已经亏损出货投资人又觉得机会来了，进场大量抄底
-》短线客和已经错过几次出货机会的投资人再次趁上涨通道出货，股市就如此反应和震荡，但是由于总体信心不足，大方向是向下的。
-》股市震荡下探。事实上，如果不救市，可能只是让100个人套100元钱，大量在次贷开始出货的资金，已经在开始的下跌中保本出货的资金，持币待抄底的短线资金不会进场并最终产生损失，但是由于救市，造成了市场反复动荡，造成200个人套了400元钱，或者说，本来市场上50%的人会被套牢，由于救市，造成了90%的人被套牢。
-》大家都亏的爹妈都不认识了，整个社会的信心被严重打击，一系列的对实体经济的干扰也开始不和谐的出现了
-》最终，大量企业倒闭，大量工人失业，大量在职工人被削减工资，经济危机就此达成。

所以说，正如我一直在以前的帖子里面坚持的，搞金融的，90%的人，就是光消耗社会资源，不产生实际价值的社会蛀虫（不包括给有足够偿还能力的企业进行贷款和融资的传统金融业务，专指搞衍生品和次贷这样的脱底棺材生意的现代金融业务。）由于他们自身的目光短浅和不学无术，刚愎自用，造成了次贷金融危机，又由于同样的原因，胁迫或者说欺骗，要求政府不顾有良心有道德有水平的经济学家的呼吁强行进行救市，最终造成经济危机。
他们就是这个社会不安定，不团结，造成恐慌和恐惧的根本因素。

另外给那些坚信中国房市不会跌，以及政府房市托市会有效的人说一句话，中国房市早崩盘早好，对大家都好。崩盘拖延一天，救市措施多一条，大家以后的日子就都难过一分---是每一个人都会不好过，没有人逃得过经济大势，越反抗只能对强[tt]奸者和被强[/tt]奸者双方都更加的不好
大家要记得，中国的房市，已经把中国人过去30年和未来30年的所有储蓄，所有消费热情都消耗光了，而且房市的资金最终流向都是大资本家，根本不参与社会再分配。本来通过日常消费的再分配100元钱能产生1000元钱的功效，但是一旦进入大资本家的口袋，100元钱就只有200元钱了，甚至被他们转移到国外后，我们的100元钱1分都没有了。---这是基本的货币特征概念，每个学过简单的入门经济学的朋友都能搞懂吧？
所以说，房价越高，对经济的损害越大！每一个人的利益都会被高房价极大的损害。
房价的暴跌，不是买不起房子的需要，而是经济环境中每一个人的必然需求。是社会发展必然要求让他在不理性暴涨后通过暴跌来回归理性。

现在地方政府为了自己每年的经济报告好看点好向中央交差，都在拼命托市，这是非常不理智的，对他们只有四个字：饮鸩止渴。

南方公园12季第八集，琼斯博士惨遭卢卡斯和斯皮尔博格疯狂反复轮奸

南方公园这一集太恶心了！
全世界人民都为你哭泣，可怜的琼斯博士！

房价真的下跌了，用数据来证明。

点击图片看全尺寸的大图

上面的图是短期内的价格，在官方的www.fangdi.com.cn上可以看到，是一个下降的趋势。虽然只有半个月的历史数据可以看，但是事实上我已经观察了这个表格很多个月了，内环的价格从最高点的35000到现在的31000多，是非常明显的下降趋势的。

不过官网上的数据比较有意思的是，据我观察，和大家普遍认同的外环跌得多，内环跌得少的情况是正好相反的。在我半年的观察期内，外环虽然总体也是下跌的，但是下跌幅度反而比较少，并且有时候还会涨上去。但是内环是一路下跌，并且幅度也较外环大。

这个网站统计的数据是以实际一手房合同为准，所以也有可能证明了这样一种情况，虽然内环的房子的挂牌价可能没有下跌，但是实际成交价却下跌了，即房子的价格是可以通过谈判谈下来的，并且谈下来的幅度越来越大。所以造成了这种映像和实际数据间的背离。



下面的图，是我1年前无聊的时候每天根据www.fangdi.com.cn上面公布的每日交易数据，用统计分析方法计算出来的全市的每平方均价。虽然这个数据是通过交易情况用统计方法计算出来的，但是还是有一定参考性的。

后来由于每日要去查数据（该网没有历史功能），非常麻烦，所以我后来就不去查了。所以可以看到倒数第二行的数据是2007年的。

今天我一时无聊，就去查询了一下最新的数据，将其输入，计算所得结果.....大家自己看吧，注意中间的每平方均价，全市均价下降的趋势是非常非常明显的。



对于这些数据，需要明确的是，这个是官方网站上对实际成交的全新一手房的售价数据，不是外面的挂牌价，所以还是很有参考性的。

次贷危机是有史以来最大的政治阴谋

每次写文章，就得先想个牛逼的名字。这篇文章的名字已经想好了，先贴上来。至于具体的文章的内容，等我哪天心情好了，再慢慢写吧。
其实文章的核心很简单的，就是所谓的次贷危机，对美国实体经济基本没有损害，对金融市场的损害也由于及时的破产法介入而非常有限。美国的几个大金融机构之所以要集中申请破产保护，其背后的目的，就是一个非常大的政治阴谋。至于7000亿救市计划，其在具体实施的手段上，更是一个惊天骇人的超级大阴谋，是美帝妄图控制全世界，消灭一切有实力反对他发动石油战争的国家的超级大阴谋。
我可以负责任的说，你看了我完整的文章，就会知道第三次世界大战，其实美帝已经先拔头筹了。
=====================================
先说说第三次世界大战吧。

我个人认为，第三次世界大战，是一定要打起来的。而这个大战的发起人，就是美帝。美帝对能源的需求很大，现在世界石油产量又被opec控制，所以他对西亚的石油资源是绝对的垂涎欲滴的。同时，如果控制了西亚的石油资源，便可以几乎控制了世界上大部分的国家了。因为没有一个国家的运营离开的了石油。

但是这场战争怎么打，是很讲究的。战争的一个基本要求，就是在达到战争目的的前提下，尽量保存自己的实力。对美帝来说，他就必须要在这场战争中减少伤亡，减少对国力的消耗。

美帝虽然有世界上最先进的武器，但是真要和很多石油大鳄打起仗来，损失也不会小。战争的直接损失是一个方面，参照伊拉克经验，战后的管理也是一个非常大的问题。

这场战争最大的麻烦事情，是全世界都对石油资源虎视眈眈。哪天美帝找个借口开始对西亚石油输出国动手脚了，估计全世界没有一个国家会袖手旁观，就连NATO组织的其他成员国，有可能都都会想来分一杯羹。这个分发，有可能是做他的同盟国，也可能是做他的敌对国，这个谁也说不清楚的。

但是对美帝来说，不管是同盟国还是敌对国，都是要令他不爽的---敌对国，当然要加大他的战争成本，如果敌对国太多，战争是否能够取胜都是问题。同盟国，不管怎么样，到时候总得给同盟国分点好处吧？这样的话也会让自己的利益受到很大的损耗。而且美帝的目的是通过石油来独立的控制全世界，而不是和别人一起控制全世界。

所以问题就出来了，按照传统的思维，这场石油资源引发的第三次世界大战的成本是非常高昂的，结果也很难令人满意。两败俱伤，甚至养护为患都是很难避免的事情。

于是，就必须要利用一些不同于以往的高超手段，来完成这场战争。

套用我们常说的一句话，美帝在下一盘很大很大的棋。是的，这盘棋很大，而且美帝已经下了好几年了，这场棋的庄家就是小布什，这场棋的胜负分界点已经到达。小布什会在其任期内完成这场棋局中最关键，最能决定胜负的几步棋。他要使得自己能够真正成为一个名垂寰宇的，改变整个地球的格局的伟人。

这最后的几步棋，就是次级贷危机，7000亿救市，和救市策略。

经济危机对实体经济的影响
上面这句话，有点让人难以理解。经济危机对实体经济的影响，这话怎么说的？经济危机如果不是影响了经济，能冠之以危机两个字么？

但是，现代意义上的经济，被分成了两个部分，一个是实体经济，一个是虚拟经济。

实体经济就是大家都懂的制造工厂和高科技之类的东西。虚拟经济大家也都懂，就是那些金融市场上的玩意。

美国的实体经济非常有意思，他着重发展的就是在技术上垄断性非常强的产业，甚至一个产业如果开始没什么技术垄断性，那他也一定要想办法把他弄的很有垄断性。比如说牛仔裤，美国人就把它的实用性，美观性，以及委外加工的廉价性完美的整合在了一起。中国人做不到其中的美观性，欧洲人做不到其中的廉价性。当然，更加不要说一些高科技行业了，如航空航天半导体IT业等，几乎完全由美国垄断了高端市场。甚至在当代社会核心中的核心的大型计算机市场上（发展其他高科技行业离不开大型计算机的辅助和帮忙），美国人完全垄断了从cpu，通讯芯片，到协议的技术规格等一切的有技术含量的方面。

真正能把一个产业做到不可替代的，就是美国人。这就是他在企业运营，品牌经营，科技运用方面的超强垄断性。这个市场存在着很多的竞争者，但是最高端的只有美帝。

不管经济危机如何衰退，实体经济如何收到影响，这些高端行业，渗透着美国人的世世代代积累的高端行业，几乎不会受到影响。因为知识和概念的保存，是不需要成本的，企业破产了，但是企业的人还在。哪怕企业的人死了，企业的文档资料还在。一场小小的经济危机，不会将这些令美帝独步全球的东西消灭掉。

而且，最重要的是，此次经济危机的发源地，乃金融市场，他对实体经济的最大冲击，来源于两个方面，消费信心，和贷款。

前面说了，美帝是垄断高端行业的，这些行业的发展，几乎不需要很多的贷款，因为其中企业的自身实力都已经因为长期的市场垄断行为而变得非常雄厚，特别是在资金方面。除非是一些需要快速发展新兴企业，否则对于老牌的企业来说，银行倒不倒，银根缩不缩，和他们都无关。

而在信心方面，有一点是很清楚的，消费信心的减缩，首先连累的是低端竞争者。比如说现在衣服不好卖了，需要降价了。对美帝来说，他不过是改变一个生产厂家而已，从中国大陆的厂家修改到缅甸的厂家去。他自己的利润一份不少，但是售价却可以下来。而大陆这样的市场低端竞争者来说，由于没有自己的核心竞争力，市场气氛一旦变差，自己就首先受到冲击----南方很多小企业的倒闭，便是这种冲击的有力证明。同时，你又何曾看到美帝的服装企业倒闭的？

也就是说，对美帝来说，这场经济危机对他的冲击，几乎可以忽略不计。甚至，这是他最大的机遇---落后国家的小企业，此时苟延残喘，美帝垄断大企业拿出点自己手里的现金，就可以廉价把这种优良资产收过来了，岂不美哉？

经济危机对金融市场的冲击
经济危机对金融市场的冲击大不大？

答案是很大，非常大，有可能是有金融市场以来最大的冲击。

那美国这样一个金融市场和整体经济关系密切的国家来说，这场金融市场的大冲击对整个国家的损失大不大?

答案是，非但没有冲击，而且还让他更加强大。

为什么会这么说？

因为美国是世界的最大债务人，这场经济危机的最大特征是各大投行因为资不抵债了纷纷倒闭掉。我们要搞清楚，资是什么？资就是他们投资的股票和两房债券。债是什么？债就是他们发行的债权。

那么，既然美国是世界最大的债务人，那么这些投行倒闭后，最倒霉的就是那些外国国家了，他们购买了大量的美国债券，购买之前当然被要求遵守美国破产法，现在别人一破产，自己就如砧板上的肉，眼巴巴的看着美帝破产清算的时候心情好就给自己多分点钱老。

这些债权国，现在一个比一个急，为什么？既不能动武抢钱，又没有其他手段拿回钱，他们能不急么？

对于美国自己来说，还不还钱，怎么还钱，那都可以慢慢来走流程讨论了，因为这盘很大很大的棋的最关键的地方已经到来了。

现在，它可以出台一个“救市措施”来提振信心了，当然了，这个具体的救市措施所需要的钱，可不能是自己多发钞票啊，因为“美国是个负责任的国家”，多发钞票就是让美元贬值，在当今以美元作为结算货币的市场上，这种行为就是对其他国家的不负责，是要被大家批评的，也于美国的一贯“老大哥形象”不符。于是，这个救市措施的核心就这样出来了，那就是“发行债券”，然后告诉世界各国的美债投资者说，相信我，买我现在的债券，让我的金融市场活起来，我就可以把前面欠的债慢慢还上了。

大家于是都很相信的看着美帝老大哥，你2000亿，我1000亿的纷纷认购起来。

本来，美国欠大家的钱是7000亿，结果经过这么个“负责任的救市措施”一搞，大家的债权就再增加一倍，变成了14000亿了。大家心里那个开心啊，老子手里握着的债券那叫一个多啊，美帝你也有今天啊，欠老子这么多钱，看老子不收拾收拾你，羞辱羞辱你。

但是问题出来了，美帝不想还钱，或者说还钱的时候必须附带条件----你不能和我为敌，那时候，这些债权人该怎么办？毕竟，这些钱，都是国家的，人民的，如果一下子国内的几千亿美金债权别人不认帐了，或者别人说哪天老子心情好了再还你，那这些购买美国债券的决策人，改如何面对愤怒的国民的声讨？甚至在某些不和谐的国家，要担心出现肉体上的讨伐。

也就是说，以后这些国家，为了让美帝能够保证还他们的钱，不得不更加听美帝的话，更加努力的做一个听话的美帝同盟国。

你说美帝的这招高不高？简单的一个救市措施，就极大程度上加深了对世界各国的控制，加强了他在世界各国的话语权。

绝杀
好了，美帝已经通过大鱼吃小鱼的方法在这个经济危机中控制了世界的实体经济，又通过发行债券的救市措施控制了世界的舆论。

那么，当他完整的手握如此强大的权利和资源时候，就是他发动第三次世界大战，和西亚的那些产油国好好的赶上一仗的时候了。

其他的国家，要么根本不是美帝高科技的战场武器的对手，根本不敢动手，要么手握一大票没有兑现的美帝债券，生怕因为人家不还钱而被国内“暴民”撕碎后生吞活剥，于是不仅不敢动手，甚至还要帮一把忙，比如把逃亡的沙特酋长遣送给美帝等。

也就是说，这场战争没有开始，美帝就已经用经济危机及其后的救市措施这一手段消灭大量的敌人。我敢说，90%的反抗力量已经被他消灭在了战争之前了。

美帝打伊拉克有多轻松，美帝在实体战场上赢得这场第三次世界大战就会有多轻松。

这下，我们可以理解了，为什么我朝会第一个跳出来，说“我们要认购2000亿美国救市债券”了么？无他，只是因为我们离美帝走的比较远，如果美帝说，我的企业破产了，之前的几千亿债券我就不还了，那么我朝就是最先听到这句话的人。也就是说，为了避免损失，我们不得不第一个跳出来表达对美帝的忠心，告诉美帝我是你的朋友，不要抛弃我。

饮鸩止渴，说的就是这场棋局的参与者们的情况。当然了，能在棋局上把这个困局做的如此完美，让你无法反抗，只能选择一个别人要求你必须选择的选择项，还要选的开开心心无怨无悔，这种水平之高，只能说，这场棋局的坐庄者，美国总统小布什，乃世界上有史以来最牛逼最聪明最不可战神的庄家。

这是一个完美的绝杀，棋局的每一步，都在庄家的控制之中，无可逃脱。

借用刘慈欣在《三体》中的名言，“毁灭你，与你何干”？

昨天和人讨论了一下乡下人和上海人的最大区别

其实乡下人和上海人的最大区别就在对待钱的态度上。
这种态度，在年轻一辈上，差别已经很小了。
但是在老一辈，或者我这种老by身上，那个差距还是蛮大的。

一般上海人，喜欢有多少钱花多少钱，在年轻一辈上甚至已经借信用卡的东风有1倍的钱花2倍的钱出去。当然了，我们乡下人也是很喜欢花钱的，但是问题关键的差别就在于花的地方。上海人喜欢花在个人享受和个人兴趣追求的方面，比如男孩子买个牛逼的相机可能要花掉他一年的积蓄，女孩子买个名牌的正卡包可能要花掉她1，2年的积蓄等。这在乡下人看来是无法想象的事情。这也是乡下人经常嘲讽上海人的地方，乡下人觉得上海人脑子都是有问题的，喜欢做冲头把钱花在这种没有价值的地方。

乡下人以前喜欢存款，现在则喜欢投资，而且乡下人不太喜欢风险高的投资，他们对股票的喜好不高，但是他们喜欢投资房产。即使是那些没有遇到拆迁的乡下人，你手上要是没有2，3套像样点的房子，一般还真不好意思和别人说你是本地乡下人。当然了，这些房子大多数都是在本区的镇上，不大会到市区去买房子的。一般只有外地人才喜欢到市区去买房子。而对于乡下人的这种习惯，上海人也是很看不惯的，觉得很土包子，很不懂的享受人生。

其实上海人嘴里所谓的乡下人风格和乡下人嘴里所谓的上海人风格，主要就是这个消费方式和习惯的不同。十几年前，奉贤南桥镇开了很多高档的商场，里面的商品种类也都模仿的市区的几个中档商场的模式，但是都开不下去，最后关闭，转业。不是说乡下人没有钱，而是乡下人有钱也不会去买几百元的洋酒，几千元的衣服，几万元的电视机。

现在南桥汽车站旁边又开了个高档的商场（对上海人来说可能只是中档），专门卖些几千元的传单被褥锅碗瓢盆之类的东西，里面依然门可罗雀。可见，在有消费能力的中生代人群中，这种消费习惯的差别还是客观存在的。

客观的说，虽然我自己也是个喜欢攒钱的乡下人，但是我无法界定两种生活风格哪一种是正确的。或许只是双方自小享有的社会福利和保障体系的不同，造就了这种对钱的态度的不同吧。毕竟以前上海人人人有工作，不用怕饿死，所以造就了这样更加注重个人享受和兴趣发展的消费习惯。而乡下人是没有任何社会保证的，如果自己不多投资点稳妥的东西，哪天没工作，收成不好，说不准就真的揭不开锅了。

乡下人和上海人，应该是和谐的一家。但是老一辈的乡下人和上海人（特别是没有下过乡的“土”上海人）之间，总是充满了仇恨。他们互相提起对方的时候，都是种种鄙夷溢于言表。

MIT opencourse ware

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm
看到了一个好东西，MIT的开放课程
里面有些蛮不错的，准备学习一下。


http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-012Fall-2005/LectureNotes/index.htm
这个是6.012 Microelectronic Devices and Circuits 的课件下载。


http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-002Spring-2007/CourseHome/index.htm
这个是6.002 Circuits and Electronics （Spring 2007）的首页

先记着这两个，其他的再慢慢挖掘吧。
不过这个网站的速度实在不稳定啊，忽快忽慢的，折磨人


http://see.stanford.edu/SEE/Courses.aspx
斯坦福的对外课程

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/courses.php
伯克利的对外课程

去年写的文章：去永乐吵架退等离子电视差价的事情

文章是去年国庆期间写的，原文如下：

我想说一下我的关于到永乐退差价的经验。

我的等离子9.30在永乐买的，南桥永乐，10990元。两天后市区很多店面都降价到了8888了，然后我到永乐去，要求销售按8888退差价。

据说市区的店铺退差价都很方便，人过去就可以退。但是我们这里郊区就不一样了，因为市区的那些店都已经把自己的标价修改为8888了，所以退起来方便但是哦我们这里的销售还是挂的14999的标价，对外销售价格还是11000左右。而且我要他退的时候，他找了很多理由，企图说服我不要退。而且有些理由还的确很有说服力，比如别人可能一次买了很多东西，所以折扣价比较高，郊区和市区不同市场等理由，实在很难辩驳的。本人驰骋谈商场专门负责判场近4年了，怎么能被他搞到呢？

去之前，s胖子推荐我去直接找店长谈。我自己考虑了一下，觉得还是直接找销售比较好，没有必要找店长谈，因为我觉得店长从其本身的利益出发，肯定故意拖延，而且在店长办公室里面，很多谈判的策略无法施展。所以我还是决定直接找销售。
我有个同学也遇到了这样的情况，就是找店长谈的，虽然最后成功了，但是花了一个多星期，花了200元借了别人的发票，花了自己很多很多的精力，才退了1000元不到。而我只用了一个小时不到，没有花费任何费用，就成功了。诀窍很简单，反过来考虑问题，在销售电视的黄金时间内，直接在销售柜台上找销售和他搞，和他拖时间。
一开始，就找到销售，说我要退，市区现在都是8888了。销售说不可能，我这里没有收到任何通知，还是11000卖的。然后我就让他看我搜集的几张照片，用的是我自己的psp。销售说要确认一下，然后就走开了，说是要去问问总部。不过我估计他是去喝水了，因为他们肯定都受过相关的培训的，这种事情，就是和消费者拖时间，拖到消费者厌烦了，就不搞了。
我也不急，旁边找个凳子，在他柜台上坐下，悠然的很。来一个人就给他们介绍说这个机器市区都卖8888了，我是10990买的，我是来退差价的。旁边的几个销售也都看在眼里，也都来装模作样的关心问询一下的。过了几分钟，销售又回来了，说是调查清楚了，然后开始和我讲各种理由，就是我前面说到的，郊区市区不同市场，这些发票可能是ps的，这些发票可能包含了大宗购买的折扣等理由。
我知道这些理由很难辩驳，我也不辩驳，任由他说。他说了半天，口干舌燥了，开始准备歇息歇息一下了，我就开始扯着嗓子喊，说我不管，你们的理由没有道理，我今天就是要按照8888退差价云云。他无奈，只能重新给我解释一下他的那些理由。如是反复了好几次，就差不多40多分钟过去了，他也口干舌燥的不行了，喉咙也开始哑了。我倒是没有说过几句话，精神养的很好。然后我开始在他销售柜台前，在众人的围观中，扯着嗓子喊，永乐骗人，明明可以退的，为什么不承认，松下骗人，两天时间降价2000多还不准退差价，玩弄消费者，我今天要么退差价，要么叫消费者协会和110一起过来把永乐的广告扯掉。
然后事情就马上凑效了。销售马上说你息怒，我去向领导请示。然后我问他，是不是按照8888的退？他咬咬牙就终于答应了。我笑笑，那就快去吧。他这次去了5，6分钟，我也没有说什么话了，休息（不过本来就没有说几句话，而且还大半时间是坐着的）。然后呢，他就回来了，说同意按8888退了。然后他收下发票，写下收据等，我让他自己去办手续，办好了通知我，然后我就鸣金收兵。结束，圆满结束。第二天，他就办好手续了，通知拿发票。但是说要15天才能到帐刚才查帐，发现到帐了。事情就这样彻底结束了。
关键是要在人多的黄金时间搞，让他做不成生意，他就急了，让他自己去和公司和永乐方面的店长商量怎么解决去，我才不管他怎么搞。
原帖地址，那里还有很多讨论，会更加详细一点：
http://club.pchome.net/topic_1_15_1730593__.html

《南方周末》问了好几个人四个问题

我的回答：
问：你为国家做了什么？
答：养了一群狗


问：国家为我做了什么？
答：被狗反咬了几口


问：你还能为国家做什么？
答：继续喂狗


问：国家还能为你做什么？
答：继续咬我

《awake》《夺命手术》，是一部不容错过的佳片

刚刚看完这个07年的片子，不好意思啊，这么落伍，都快09年了......
首先，这个片子非常好看，无论表演还是剧情，都是一流的。
先说表演，比如说那个黑人医生，一脸的善人样，那个妈妈，一脸的奸妇像，那个妈妈叫来的医生，一脸的恶人像......但是，影片的最后，每一个人的转变都如此的合情合理毫不突兀（特别要注意黑人医生几次在善与恶的边缘徘徊不定的转换过程），就连那个醉鬼麻醉师，也不得不让人叹服他表演的一个人的不同面的真实可信。男主角和女主角的表演由于没有特别考验演技的桥段，所以不太好说表演的如何，但是绝对不差的，没有拖大家的后腿。在表演上来说，本片是上乘的。

剧情上，有人说本片漏洞百出，我倒是认为本片没有严重的漏洞。很多人说jessica为什么不干脆做个阔太太去，可以用手上的资源帮助黑人医生了......但是，影片里面说的很清楚，这个团队已经在手术问题上做了很多手脚了，做阔太太也做不长的，只要主角活着，这个骗局总有穿帮的一天，所以他们只有1条路可以选：按照计划行事，这样他们之前的所有手脚都会随者主角的死去烟消云散，没有人会去查死人的事情。本片提到这一点的时候，是非常快速和轻巧的一笔带过的，而不像某些号称佳作，实则智商低下的影片那样对这样的关键点着重和用力的表现出来。而其他各个方面，本片的剧情也都是很有智慧，逻辑性非常强。我也不多举例子，总之觉得本片漏洞多，逻辑差的朋友，希望你非常细心和仔细的揣摩一下很多的细节。

这绝对是一部需要智慧来观赏，不可多得的佳片。

而且，本片在摄影和音乐上的功力也非常不简单，画面之唯美，伴奏之动听，实属近期罕见。我对此的评语就是，让人很沉醉于其中.......这对于一部剧情片来说，应该是一个非常高的评价了吧？

很多看了开头的几分钟就大嚷太烂了看不下去了的人，还有一些看了说本片是垃圾的影评然后就深信不疑对本片避之不及的人，我实在怀疑，他们要么没有认真的观赏本片，要么是他们思维简单看不懂这么复杂的人性变换的情节，或者干脆本片所用的借代意义的表现方式他们都无法理解。我实在很遗憾，他们错过了这样一部绝对不容错过的佳片。

最后对那些喜欢看了影片介绍再去看影片，并且由此先入为主的思考影片的剧情和逻辑的人说一句话，本片的剧情，绝不是影片介绍说得那么简单，绝不是一部简单的惊悚片......

翻唱了一首歌曲《人质》

虽然我知道不好听......但是希望大家可以给我提出批评......我会再接再厉不断提高自己的水平的！
http://my.9sky.com/431921619/show/502420

开始学习一下唱歌的技巧

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjU3MzM0MTY=.html

第一步，先从这个周晓燕教唱歌的录像开始
然后，按照网上的教程，注意训练自己的呼吸方法和发音方法
努力成为一个至少唱歌起来还算可以的大好青年。。。。。。
本人声音天生暗哑，说难听点就是有公鸭嗓的特点，虽然用蛮力吼能上到很高的高音上面去，但是那都是没有音色可言，没有音准和旋律的瞎来来了，而且很伤嗓子的，唱一会儿就很累的。
所以，一定要掌握科学的发声方法，要好好的训练一下。

说一下我今天辞职的时候遇到的晦气事情，大家共勉

先说一下，行业内的一些兄弟应该都听闻过我的领导的人品低劣程度的，此人的恶劣行径令人发指，基本上和他见过一，二面的人都会给他以恶评。我今天这样做，也是被逼的，平常我还是很和谐很和谐的一个人。

我是合同到期不续签自动走人的。


今天办理辞职手续
早上一开始部门领导居然说我因为工作没有做完，不给我同意辞职一刚！
非要我把事情做完才能走
摆明了恶心我啊，我估计是想要我跪下来痛哭流涕的求他，用它最后的签字权利来恶心恶心我，想乘此最后的机会搞我，最后体现一下他的可怜的权威
和他平时这样故意恶心公司内部和公司外部的有求于他的人一样的套路。
还好我比他聪明， 他不签就不签，也不和他吵，直接去和人事部搞，要求人事部去搞定他。
人事部几次找他，他都说好好好，我马上签字，可是我去找他，他都坚持原来要我把事情做完的立场。（有脑子的人自然知道这是摆明了为难我，人事部的人也是这么认为的）

但是今天我非常气定神闲，一点火气也没有，到下班前都以为胜券在握的领导，还以为我今天可非得放下架子死命求他，他终于可以恶心恶心我了，哪里想到，嘿 嘿。。。。。。我直接和公司内的其他人聊天扯淡搞到快下班的时候，把单子往人事经理那里一放，告诉她，根据劳动合同法，今天公司必须帮我办完所有手续，不 然事情就不好说了。。。。。
人事经理马上打电话找他，他还在那里叽叽歪歪的讲大道理，说了一大堆我没有做完的xx事情。没想到啊，人事经理听了几句就和他吵起来了

然后人事经理就压他，说今天一定要签掉，不要乱搞，不要不懂装懂之类的话。然后我再跑回办公室一看他，哇～～～气得脸都绿了。。。。我就把公司内部的辞职 申请单直接放他桌上，啥也不说，他握着笔，犹豫再三，还写了几个字，“该员工由于”写到这里可能觉得再写也写不出什么内容了，只好划掉，终于把名字签上， 哈哈哈，我直接扯过单子，背上东西，一句废话都没有，直接跑路

有时候，签字是一种义务，而非权利。我想我已经给他上了一课了。

我的前面一个同事，也是因为和这个傻 逼领导不开心，几个星期前提出辞职，第二天就跑路，走的大家都很不开心的----不过这个同事厉害在她是外地人，而且公司没有给她办任何劳动手册，公积金 之类的东西，而且她是随老公出国去，很可能以后再也不回国。。。。所以公司对她一点办法也没有。
如果领导思维正常一点，人品好一点，大家才不会这样搞事情。

是非功过，大家评论。

奇怪了，为什么我的博客上都是性病广告呢

这些广告应该是按照我上面的文章的关键词自动选择的吧，但是为什么有这么多的性病广告呢？真是奇怪了。。。。。。。

上海人的极端民族主义思潮和外地人没有区别

而上海人的极端地域主义，也和外地论坛上常见的正对上海的极端地域主义没有任何区别。大家考虑问题都只考虑自己，而非综合全局。

其实大家也就那么点素质，什么上海人外地人，我看大家都没什么区别。

特别要注意的是有一小撮的海外帮民族主义，成为国内民族主义者用于证明自己观点的有力佐证。

海外帮的民族主义定义如下：
海外民族主义(Diaspora nationalism)（或如本尼迪克特·安德森所说的“长程民族主义”）一般指感觉流离失所(diaspora)的民族主义者，如在美国的爱尔兰人与 美非两洲的黎巴嫩人[1]。安德森称此型的民族主义为，想要有民族连系，却又不愿离开寄居地者的“幽灵根基”("phantom bedrock")。

其实极端民族主义思潮的泛起，并非来源于人民自身的迫切需求和社会发展的必然结果。而是来自于从3岁开始直至成年的教育成果。现代教育的目的并非教育人使之成为一个完善，健康，客观的人，而是一个在需要的时候一经鼓动就能完全的服从最高指示的人。
我不得不说，这个潜移默化的教育是非常成功的。

而现代教育成功的塑造了大量可随时呼应的听话的民族主义者的方法是，教授了科学知识，但是却不教授科学思维方式。
这就导致一个人可能拥有硕士博士的学历，但是却没有人性关怀的概念，没有谦虚学习的想法，没有社会批判的精神。

所以说，一个农村的老农可能整天在骂村长乡长县长市长省长xx长，但是一个大学生却整天为村长乡长县长市长省长xx长歌功颂德。他们还为这种现状解释说是，正是因为有文化，才这样表现。看那些没文化的老农，就知道整天抱怨。
而事实的真相，是他们根本没有学会一个正常的人应该有的思维能力和方式，他们不过是简单的知识承载体，而非自我发现的思维体。和一个经历过各种风雨的老农比，他们还差的太远。

1989后开始读初中高中大学的一代，是非常可怜的一代，因为和他们生活在同一个社会中的人，从来没有经受过如此严厉和残酷的洗脑运动。
10年文化大革命，消灭了中国人的人伦道德，因为有人论道德的人是有羞耻感的，会支持对的，反对错的。而没有人伦道德感的人不会。
64之后，消灭了中国人的独立思维能力，因为有独立思维能力的人，其中的一部分能够重建自己的立场，支持对的，反对错的。而经过64运动后，高层发现这样的独立思维能力也是要不得的，必须消灭掉。
所以洗脑运动基本方针确定后，从90年代中期开始，一切舆论，文化产品，教育产品，都经受了严酷的改革。鼓吹批判性，独立性，正义性的一切文艺文化作品都要消灭掉，改之以温和的，针对性的作品。
而对于那些胆敢发表不合适言论的人，就要收监，关押，或者至少谈话，喝咖啡。
这是一个堪比《1984》中英社雏形的世界。

关于洗脑运动，我要补充的是，文革的洗脑，是灌输式的。但是64后的洗脑，是潜移默化式的。我必须承认，搞这一套东西，邓小平的水平要比毛泽东高的多。毕竟邓小平是在法国留学过的，见识过世面的，特别是见识过现代民主发源地法国人民的斗争的，毛泽东不过是个闭门造成的土包子而已。
其最大特点是：以非常虚伪的假自由来让被洗脑的人有一种是我自己选择而非强行灌输的错觉。但其实在力求自保的本能下，你的选择是唯一的，而不是多项的自由的。你可以选择不和谐，但是要小心喝咖啡；你可以选择骂政府，但是要小心抓进去。这和文革的根本不能选择是有本质区别的。在选择另一选项的巨大成本压力下，大部分人会自然而然的选择和谐和服从，而非反面。由此他们会认为，这是人民自己的选择，这是我的选择，这也是唯一正确的选择。而问题的本质是，在成本压力下，他们只能这样选择。只有一个选项的题目就不是选择题。
最终，他们会建立起希望被建立的世界观人生观。
这样的人，是塑造出来的人，而非自我完善出来的人。

发现股市规律了，第三次沪市大崩盘马上就要开始啦

2007年的时候，我在pchome发布了这个帖子，当时大家好像都在骂我。
不过一年后，股市的变化证明我的正确性----虽然我所谓的正确性完全来源于瞎猫遇到死耗子

以下是当时的原文，我只转一部分，完整部分可以自己点连接过去看：

http://club.pchome.net/topic_1_15_1646110.html
大家看图：
1992-1993年之间，股市一度下跌，然后开始疯涨。远远超出上次下跌前的高点。但是没有涨多久就一路下滑。
再看1999-2002年之间，这个趋势比较缓，但是还可以看出和第一次趋势的相似性。1999年上涨到顶之后开始下跌，跌了一阵又开始疯涨。涨到02年开始崩盘。这就是所谓的第二次崩盘
从第一次和第二次崩盘的比较可以看出，每次崩盘的程度，和此次崩盘开始时候的一次较缓趋势的下跌并没有关系，而是和下跌后又一路上涨的程度有关。涨的越多，相对来说崩盘后下跌的程度越厉害。
第一次崩盘，首次下跌后，到达高点的速度非常快，只用了3个月就从第一个谷底到达了高点1500点，一年半后的1994年7月下跌到469点，下跌幅度70%左右
第二次崩盘，首次下跌后，从低点1300到高点2200多，花了5个月，然后从01年7月跌到05年的1000点，下跌幅度60%左右。
公式：而每次崩盘前的一次小谷底之前的一次小高峰，都不会比此次崩盘的最高点低太多，大约是第一次小高潮的最高点指数+第一次谷底指数>本次行情的终点。
这种左小右大双峰特性，在95-96，97-98，以及随后的各年间，也都能看到，只是经常被混杂在大趋势中，而显得不够明显。
也就是说，上海股市中或许存在这样一种规律：从第一个低点开始上涨的速度越快，则此次上涨到顶后的下降幅度也越多，速度也越快。
那么，现在做一个纯理论上的假设，假设05年底的1000点是这波行情的最后一个谷底，则从当时到现在，整个股市始终处在疯狂上涨的趋势之中。
当然，把问题看的微观一点，把530当作第一次谷底。
不管是用3年的角度宏观的看这波行情，还是从3个月的微观的角度看这波行情，这波行情都已经处于谷底后的疯涨阶段。
但是根据公式所揭示的规律，把530当作本次行情的第一次谷底是更加合适的。
也就是说，据前面的2次明显规律，以及5，6次大趋势中较为隐蔽的同样规律来说，这波行情将很快下跌。
根据公式所示，本次行情的最高点不会高于：4300+3400=7700.
同时，最终的下跌速度，将猛于第一次崩盘的速度和幅度，大约可以在1年内，下跌超过70%，即2300点左右会是本次崩溃的最低点。

转贴一篇文章，对阿波罗计划阴谋论的驳斥

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong in NASA's training mock-up of the Moon and lander module. Hoax proponents say the entire mission was filmed on sets like this training mock-up.

Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories are claims that some or all elements of the Apollo Moon landings were faked by NASA and possibly members of other involved organizations. Some groups and individuals have advanced various theories which tend, to varying degrees, to include the following common elements:

• The Apollo astronauts did not land on the Moon;
• NASA and possibly others intentionally deceived the public into believing the landing(s) did occur by manufacturing, destroying, or tampering with evidence, including photos, telemetry tapes, transmissions, and rock samples;
• NASA and possibly others continue to actively participate in the conspiracy to this day.

Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. A 1999 poll by the The Gallup Organization found that 89 percent of the US public believed the landing was genuine, while 6 percent did not and 5 percent were undecided.^[1][2] These theories have been generally discounted.^[3]

Contents [hide] 1 Origins and history 2 Predominant hoax claims 2.1 Suggested motives for a hoax 3 Critiques of hoax accusations 3.1 Conspiracy theory 3.2 Scientific method 4 Hoax claims examined 4.1 Missing data 4.2 Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR 4.3 Photographs and films 4.4 Ionizing radiation and heat 4.5 Transmissions 4.6 Mechanical issues 4.7 Moon rocks 4.8 Deaths of key Apollo personnel 4.9 Gravity on the Moon 4.10 Involvement of the Soviet Union 5 Individuals featured in the controversy 5.1 Major hoax proponents and proposals 5.2 Large telescopes and the Moon hoax 5.3 People accused of involvement in the hoax 6 Other evidence and issues 6.1 NASA book commission and withdrawal 6.2 Academic work 6.3 Attempts to view the landing site 6.4 MythBusters special 7 Quotes 8 Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody 9 See also 10 References 11 External links 11.1 Television specials

[edit] Origins and history

The first book dedicated to the subject, Bill Kaysing's self-published We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle was released in 1974, two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ceased.

Folklorist Linda Degh pointed out that the 1978 film Capricorn One (which depicts a hoaxed journey to Mars in spacecraft that look identical to the Apollo craft) may have given a "boost" to the hoax theory's popularity in the post-Vietnam War, post-Watergate era when segments of the American public were disinclined to trust official accounts. Degh writes that "The mass media catapult these half-truths into a kind of twilight zone where people can make their guesses sound as truths. Mass media have a terrible impact on people who lack guidance."^[4]

In his book A Man on the Moon, published in 1994, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8's lunar-orbit mission in December 1968 similar ideas were already in circulation.

[edit] Predominant hoax claims

A number of different hoax theories have been advanced. No one has proposed a complete narrative of how the hoax could have been perpetrated, but instead believers focus on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. Several of these ideas and their most readily identifiable proponents are described below:

1. Complete hoax — The idea that the entire human landing program was faked. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was insufficient or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.^[5]
2. Partial hoax / unmanned landings — Bart Sibrel has stated that the crew of Apollo 11 and subsequent astronauts had faked their orbit around the Moon and their walk on its surface by trick photography, and that they never got more than halfway to the Moon. A subset of this proposal is advocated by those who concede the existence of retroreflectors and other observable human-made objects on the Moon. British publisher Marcus Allen represented this argument when he said "I would be the first to accept what [telescope images of the landing site] find as powerful evidence that something was placed on the Moon by man." He goes on to say that photographs of the lander would not prove that America put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959, the big problem is getting people there." His argument focuses around NASA sending robot missions because radiation levels in space were lethal to humans. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollo 14 or 15 being the first authentic mission.^[6]
3. Manned landings, with cover-ups
   • William Brian believes that the astronauts may have used "a secret zero gravity device" derived from technology found on a "captured extraterrestrial spaceship", but that NASA was compelled to cover up these facts and others relating to the gravity and the presence of atmosphere on the moon in order to maintain secrecy surrounding the alien space ship.^[7]
   • Others^[who?] believe that, while astronauts did land on the Moon, they covered up what they found, whether it was gravitational anomalies, alien artifacts, or alien encounters. ^[8] Philippe Lheureux, in Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon), said that astronauts did land on the Moon, but that, in order to prevent other nations from benefiting from scientific information in the real photos, NASA published fake images.^[9]
4. Actual lunar landing - faked filming – Still others believe that men did land on the moon, but that the photography was of very low media quality and in most cases unsuitable or even unusable. Therefore the U.S. government (NASA), since it had to present proof of the space program's success to justify taxpayers' money and keep the program alive, altered, modified and even faked many of the pictures and video, launching a subsequent media campaign with great success.

[edit] Suggested motives for a hoax

Several motives are given by hoax proponents for the U.S. government to fake the Moon landings.

1. Cold-War prestige — The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon was risky and expensive (John F. Kennedy famously said that the U.S. chose to go because it was difficult). Despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, Bill Kaysing believes that it would have been easier for the U.S. to fake it, and consequently guarantee success, than for the U.S. actually to go.^{[5] p. 29}
2. Money — NASA raised approximately $30 billion to go to the Moon. Bill Kaysing thinks that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity.^{[5] p. 71}
3. Risk — This argument assumes that the problems early in the space program were insurmountable, even by a technology team fully motivated and funded to fix the problems. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.017%.^{[5] pp. 26–40}
4. Distraction — According to hoax proponents, the U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the U.S. ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.^[10] (However, the Apollo program was cancelled several years before the Vietnam War ended.^[11])
5. Delivering the promise — To seemingly fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

[edit] Critiques of hoax accusations

Main article: Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings

[edit] Conspiracy theory

Hoax accusations have been characterized as conspiracy theories since believers claim that conspirators in the possession of secret knowledge are misleading or have misled the public in pursuit of a hidden agenda—namely, hiding that the Moon landings were faked. This is the central argument of the prominent critics of the conventional history of the Apollo program. The 2001 Fox special, which examined the issues on each side, used that term in its title (Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?). However, the term "conspiracy theory" is highly charged, and many people consider it to be pejorative.^[12]

The Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations have been the subject of debunking and, according to the debunkers, have been falsified. An article in the German magazine Der Spiegel places the Moon hoax in the context of other well-known 20th century conspiracy theories which it describes as "the rarefied atmosphere of those myths in which Elvis is alive, John F. Kennedy fell victim to a conspiracy involving the Mafia and secret service agents, the Moon landing was staged in the Nevada desert, and Princess Diana was murdered by the British intelligence services."^[13]

[edit] Scientific method

Application of the scientific method to this scenario allows each explanation of an event to be presented as a separate hypothesis, such as:

Real landing hypothesis

NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common errors as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections.

Hoax hypothesis

NASA's portrayal of the Moon landing is an orchestrated hoax.

In this type of evaluation, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected.^[14] The lack of narrative consistency in the hoax hypothesis occurs because hoax accounts vary from proponent to proponent. The 'real landing' hypothesis is a single story, since it comes from a single source, but there are many hoax hypotheses, each of which addresses a specific aspect of the Moon landing. The evidence regarding the Moon landings is met by hoax believers with skepticism, who label the NASA story as unconvincing propaganda made by "the establishment" to cover up the alleged lie.

An example of such an exchange is the evidence for the landing of the Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 15 retroreflector arrays on the Moon. Scientists have reflected lasers off these to measure the distance between Earth and the Moon (see Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment).^[15] Hoax proponents such as Marcus Allen say that because the Russians placed reflectors on the Moon using robotic missions,^[16] the presence of similar reflectors should be explained by, for example, a secret American robotic mission with an express aim to place retroreflectors on the Moon to provide misleading evidence and corroborate that part of the Apollo missions.^[13][17]

[edit] Hoax claims examined

As mentioned above, many hoax claims focus on perceived problems with specific portions of the historical record surrounding the moon landings. Below is an overview of these claims as well as their associated attempted debunking from various sources:

[edit] Missing data

Photo of the high-quality SSTV image before the scan conversion.

Photo of the degraded image after the SSTV scan conversion.

Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing. Apollo 11 data tapes containing telemetry and the high quality video (before scan conversion) of the first moonwalk are missing.^[18] For more information see Apollo program missing tapes.

a) Dr. David Williams (NASA archivist at Goddard Space Flight Center) and Apollo 11 flight director Gene Kranz both acknowledged that the Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes are missing. Hoax proponents interpret this as support for the case that they never existed.^[19]

• Only the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes made during the moonwalk are missing—and not those of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.^[20] For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module carried a Slow-scan television (SSTV) camera (see Apollo TV camera). In order to be broadcast to regular television, a scan conversion has to be done. The radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia was in position to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk.^[21] Parkes had a larger antenna than NASA's antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it got a better picture. It also got a better picture than NASA's antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape there. A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast around the world. The original SSTV broadcast had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures.^[22] It is this tape made in Australia before the scan conversion which is missing. Tapes or films of the scan-converted pictures exist and are available. Still photographs of the original SSTV image are available (see photos). Also, about fifteen minutes of the SSTV images of the Apollo 11 moonwalk were filmed by an amateur 8 mm film camera, and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV, and their video is also available. At least some of the telemetry tapes from the ALSEP scientific experiments left on the Moon (which ran until 1977) still exist, according to Dr. Williams. Copies of those tapes have been found.^[23]

• Others are looking for the missing telemetry tapes, but for different reasons. The tapes contain the original and highest quality video feed from the Apollo 11 lunar landing which a number of former Apollo personnel want to recover for posterity, while NASA engineers looking towards future Moon missions believe the Apollo telemetry data may be useful for their design studies. Their investigations have determined that the Apollo 11 tapes were sent for storage at the US National Archives in 1970, but by 1984 all the Apollo 11 tapes had been returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center at their request. The tapes are believed to have been stored rather than re-used, and efforts to determine where they were stored are ongoing.^[24] Goddard was storing 35,000 new tapes per year in 1967,^[25] even before the lunar landings.

• On November 1, 2006 Cosmos Magazine reported that some one-hundred data tapes recorded in Australia during the Apollo 11 mission had been discovered in a small marine science laboratory in the main physics building at the Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Australia. One of the old tapes has been sent to NASA for analysis. It is not known if the slow-scan television images are on any of the tapes.^[26]

b) Hoax proponents say that blueprints for the Apollo Lunar Module, rover, and associated equipment are missing.^[27]

• There are some diagrams of the Lunar Module and Moon buggy on the NASA web site as well as on the pro hoax web site Xenophilia.com.^[27] Grumman appears to have destroyed most of the documentation.^[28][29]
• Despite the questions concerning the existence or location of the LEM blueprints, an unused LEM is on exhibit at the Cradle of Aviation Museum.^[30][31] The Lunar Module designated LM-13 would have landed on the Moon during the Apollo 18 mission, but was instead put into storage when the mission was canceled: it has since been restored and put on display. Other unused Lunar Modules are on display: LM-2 at the National Air and Space Museum, LM-9 at Kennedy Space Center, and LM-16 at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.^[32]

• Copies of the blueprints for the Saturn V exist on microfilm. ^[33]

• Four mission-worthy Lunar Rovers were built, but three were carried to the Moon on Apollo 15, 16, and 17, and left there. After Apollo 18 was canceled (see Canceled Apollo missions), the other lunar rover was used for spare parts for the lunar rovers on the upcoming Apollo 15 through 17 missions. The only lunar rovers on display are test vehicles, trainers, and models.^[34] The "Moon buggies" were built by Boeing (the New Encyclopædia Britannica Micropedia, 2005, vol 2, p 319).^[35] The 221-page operation manual for the Lunar Rover contains some detailed drawings,^[36] although not the design blueprints.

c) Bart Sibrel said "In my research at NASA I uncovered, deep in the archives, one mislabeled reel from the Apollo 11, first mission, to the Moon. What is on the reel and on the label are completely different. I suspect an editor put the wrong label on the tape 33 years ago and no reporter ever had the motive to be as thorough as I. It contains an hour of rare, unedited, color television footage that is dated by NASA’s own atomic clock three days into the flight. Identified on camera are Neil Armstrong, Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins. They are doing multiple takes of a single shot of the mission, from which only about ten seconds was ever broadcast. Because I have uncovered the original unedited version, mistakenly not destroyed, the photography proves to be a clever forgery. Really! It means they did not walk on the Moon!"

• The NASA atomic clock referred to is not the same clock as that used during the Apollo missions.^[37]

[edit] Technological capability of USA compared with the USSR

At the time of Apollo, the Soviet Union had five times more manned hours in space than the US.^[38] They had achieved:

1. First manmade satellite in orbit (October 1957, Sputnik 1).
2. First living creature to enter orbit, a female dog named Laika, (November 1957, Sputnik 2).
3. First to safely return living creature from orbit, two dogs Belka and Strelka, 40 mice, 2 rats (August 1960, Sputnik 5).
4. First man in space, Yuri Gagarin, also the first man to orbit the Earth (April 1961, Vostok 1).
5. First to have two spacecraft in orbit at the same time (though it was not a space rendezvous, as frequently described) (August 1962, Vostok 3 and Vostok 4).
6. First woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova (June 1963, Vostok 6, as part of a second dual-spacecraft flight including Vostok 5).
7. First crew of three cosmonauts on board one spacecraft (October 1964, Voskhod 1).
8. First spacewalk (EVA) (March 1965, Voskhod 2).

On January 27, 1967, the three astronauts aboard Apollo 1 died in a fire on the launch pad during training. The fire was triggered by a spark in the oxygen-rich atmosphere used in the spacecraft test, and fueled by a significant quantity of combustible material within the spacecraft. Two years later all of the problems were declared fixed. Bart Sibrel believes that the accident led NASA to conclude that the only way to 'win' the moon race was to fake the landings.^[39] In any case, the first manned Apollo flight, Apollo 7, occurred in October, 1968, 21 months after the fire.

• NASA and others say that these achievements by the Soviets are not as impressive as the simple list implies; that a number of these 'firsts' were mere stunts that did not advance the technology significantly, or at all (e.g. the first woman in space).^[40]
• A close examination of the many flight missions reveal many problems, risks, and near-catastrophes for both the Soviet and American programs. A negative 'first' for the Soviets was the first in-flight fatality, in April 1967, three months after the Apollo I fire, as Soyuz 1 crash-landed. Despite that disaster, the Soyuz program continued, after a lengthy interval to solve design problems, as with the Apollo program.
• Before the first Earth-orbiting Apollo flight, the USSR had accumulated 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the US had accumulated over 1,992 hours of manned spaceflight. By the time of Apollo 11, the US's lead was much wider than that (see List of human spaceflights, 1960s.)
• Most of the firsts above were done by the US within a year afterwards (sometimes within weeks). In 1965 the US started to achieve many firsts which were important steps in a mission to the Moon. See List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969 for a more complete list of achievements by both the US and USSR. The USSR never developed a successful rocket capable of a Moon landing mission — their N1 rocket failed on all four launch attempts. They never tested a lunar lander on a manned mission.^[41]

[edit] Photographs and films

Main article: Examination of Apollo moon photos

Moon hoax proponents devote a substantial portion of their efforts to examining NASA photos. They point to various issues with photographs and films purportedly taken on the Moon. Experts in photography (even those unrelated to NASA) respond that the anomalies, while sometimes counter-intuitive, are in fact precisely what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and contrary to what would occur with manipulated or studio imagery. Hoax proponents also state that whistleblowers may have deliberately manipulated the NASA photos in hope of exposing NASA.

1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects.

• Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film.

2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.

• Popular versions of photos are sometimes cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

• There are many, many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.^[42][43]

4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a press conference after the event to have not remembered seeing any of the stars.

• The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure, and could not detect the faint points of light.^{[44], pp. 158–160[45]}

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

• Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.^{[44], pp. 167–172} Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

This was proved to be "BUSTED" in MythBusters (season 7)#Episode 104 - NASA Moon Landing.

6. Identical backgrounds in photos are listed as taken miles apart.

• Shots were not identical, just similar. Background objects were mountains many miles away. Without an atmosphere to obscure distant objects, it can be difficult to tell the relative distance and scale of terrain features.^[46] One specific case is debunked in Who Mourns For Apollo? by Mike Bara.^[47]

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.^[48]

• Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. Calculations are based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

• The "C"-shaped image was from printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera. ^{[49] [50]}

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald", said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

• No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. "Una Ronald"'s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.^[51]

10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photograph of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

• It was used in lieu of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too grainy to present in a book's picture section. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

• Pits in moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to minuscule glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on wet grass. (see Heiligenschein)^[52]

12. Footprints in the extraordinarily fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, in the minds of some observers – as if made in wet sand.

• The dust is silicate, and this has a special property in a vacuum of sticking together like that. The astronauts described it as being like "talcum powder or wet sand".^[47] This was proved to be "BUSTED" in MythBusters (season 7)#Episode 104 - NASA Moon Landing.

The original Buzz Aldrin photograph.

Photo of the Earth taken from behind the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.

The photo mockup made for the book Moon Shot. The second astronaut is located in the 'fold' in the middle of the scanned photo.

TV image of the actual scene.

[edit] Ionizing radiation and heat

Challenges and responses

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see Radiation poisoning). Some hoax theorists have suggested that Starfish Prime (high altitude nuclear testing in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.

• The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray.^[53] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.^{[44], pp. 160–162}

• The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.^[54] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions. ^[55]

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

• The film was kept in metal containers that prevented radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.^{[44], pp. 162–163} In addition, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

• There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.^{[44], pp. 165–67} The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated. ^[56]

• Note: all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. The Moon's day is approximately 29½ days long, and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few earth days of the lunar day.

4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. "They should have been fried."

• No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.^[57][58]

[edit] Transmissions

Challenges and responses

1. The lack of a more than two-second delay in two-way communications at a distance of a 400,000 km (250,000 miles).

• The round trip light travel time of more than two seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Principal motivations for editing the audio would likely come in response to time constraints or in the interest of clarity.^[59]

The relative sizes of, and distance between, Earth and Moon, to scale, with a beam of light travelling between them at the speed of light.

2. Typical delays in communication were on the order of half a second.

• Claims that the delays were only on the order of half a second are unsubstantiated by an examination of the actual recordings. It should also be borne in mind that there should not be a straightforward, consistent time delay between every response, as the conversation is being recorded at one end - Mission Control. Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the moon.

3. The Parkes Observatory in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the Moon, then five hours before transmission they were told to stand down.

• The timing of the first Moonwalk was moved up after landing. In fact, delays in getting the Moonwalk started meant that Parkes did cover almost the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk.^[60]

4. Parkes supposedly provided the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States.

• While that was the original plan, and, according to some sources, the official policy, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) did take the transmission direct from the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek radio telescopes. These were converted to NTSC television at Paddington, in Sydney. This meant that Australian viewers saw the Moonwalk several seconds before the rest of the world.^[61] See also The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission, from "Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia" (The events surrounding the Parkes Observatory's role in relaying the live television of man's first steps on the Moon were portrayed in a slightly fictionalized 2000 Australian film comedy The Dish.)

5. Better signal was supposedly received at Parkes Observatory when the Moon was on the opposite side of the planet.

• This is not supported by the detailed evidence and logs from the missions.^[62]

[edit] Mechanical issues

Challenges and responses

1. No blast crater or any sign of dust scatter as was seen in the 16mm movies of each landing ^{[5], p. 75}.

• No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer rapidly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the module's own weight, diminished by the 1/6 g lunar gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI)^{[44], p. 164}. Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads and the pressure drops very rapidly. (In comparison the Saturn V F-1 first stage engines produced 3.2 MPa (459 PSI) at the mouth of the nozzle.) Rocket exhaust gases expand much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To reduce this, rocket engines designed for vacuum operation have longer bells than those designed for use at the Earth's surface, but they still cannot prevent this spreading. The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar soil is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".^{[44], pp. 163–165}

2. The launch rocket (Lunar Module ascent stage) produced no visible flame.

• The Lunar Module used Aerozine-50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust. The same or similar hypergolic fuels are used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On the earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum.

Apollo 17 LM leaving the Moon; rocket exhaust visible only briefly.

The launch of a Titan II, burning Aerozine-50/N2O4. Note the near-transparency of the exhaust.

Exhaust flame may not be visible outside the atmosphere, as in this photo. Rocket engines are the dark structures at the bottom center.

3. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.

• Chemical analysis of the rocks confirms a different oxygen isotopic composition and a lack of volatile elements. There are only a few 'identical' rocks, and those few fell as meteorites after being ejected from the Moon during impact cratering events. The total quantity of these 'lunar meteorites' is small compared to the more than 840 lb (380 kg) of lunar samples returned by Apollo. Also the Apollo lunar soil samples chemically matched the Russian Luna space probe’s lunar soil samples. In addition, unlike the Antarctic lunites, the rocks recovered from the moon do not exhibit the effects of atmospheric friction.

4. The presence of deep dust around the module; given the blast from the landing engine, this should not be present.

• The dust is created by a continuous "rain" of micrometeoroid impacts and is typically several inches thick. It forms the top of the lunar regolith, a layer of impact rubble several meters thick and highly compacted with depth. On the earth, an exhaust plume might stir up the atmosphere over a wide area. On the moon, only the exhaust gas itself can disturb the dust. Some areas around descent engines were scoured clean. ^{[44], pp. 163–165}

Note: In addition, moving footage of astronauts and the lunar rover kicking up lunar dust clearly show the dust particles kicking up quite high due to the low gravity, but settling immediately without air to stop them. Had these landings been faked on the earth, dust clouds would have formed. (They can be seen as a 'goof' in the movie Apollo 13 when Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) imagines walking on the moon). This clearly shows the astronauts to be (a) in low gravity and (b) in a vacuum.

5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.^[63] Sibrel said "The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for Earth’s six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over".

• The astronauts were moving the flag into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. A horizontal rod, visible in many photographs, extended from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display. The flag's rippled appearance was from folding during storage, and it could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph. The top support rod telescoped and the crew of Apollo 11 could not fully extend it. Later crews preferred to only partially extend the rod. Videotapes shows that when the flag stops after the astronauts let it go, it remains motionless. At one point the flag remains completely motionless for well over thirty minutes. (See inertia.) See the photographs below.

Cropped photo of Buzz Aldrin saluting the flag (Note the fingers of Aldrin's right hand can be seen behind his helmet).

Cropped photo taken a few seconds later, Buzz Aldrin's hand is down, head turned toward the camera, the flag is unchanged.

Animation of the two photos, showing that the flag is not waving.

The flag is not waving, but is swinging as a pendulum after being touched by the astronauts. Here is a three-minute video from Apollo 15 showing that the flag does not move except when the astronauts move it. Here is a thirty-minute Apollo 11 video showing that the flag does not move.

6. The Lander weighed 17 tons and sat on top of the sand making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand.

• The lander weighed less than three tons on the Moon. The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the 1-meter landing pads. Pressure, or force per unit area, rather than force, determines the extent of soil compression. In some photos the landing pads did press into the soil, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown.

7. The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere.

• The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds of feedwater provided some eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA. Because this system could not work in an atmosphere, the astronauts required large external chillers to keep them comfortable during earth training.

• Radiative cooling would have avoided the need to consume water, but it could not operate below body temperature in such a small volume. The radioisotope thermoelectric generators, could use radiative cooling fins to permit indefinite operation because they operated at much higher temperatures.

8. Although Apollo 11 had made an almost embarrassingly imprecise landing well outside the designated target area, Apollo 12 succeeded, on November 19, 1969, in making a pin-point landing, within walking distance (less than 200 meters) of the Surveyor 3 probe, which had landed on the Moon in April 1967.

• The Apollo 11 landing was not 'embarrassingly imprecise'. Armstrong took semi-automatic control^[64] of the lander and directed it further down range when it was noted that the intended landing site was strewn with boulders. (This same boulder field was later visited by the astronauts for scientific examination.) Apollo 14 landed even closer to the planned landing site.
• The Apollo astronauts were highly skilled pilots, and the LEM was a maneuverable craft that could be accurately flown to a specific landing point. During the powered descent phase the astronauts used the PNGS (Primary Navigation Guidance System) and LPD (Landing Point Designator) to predict where the LEM was going to land, and then they would manually pilot the LEM to a selected point with great accuracy.

[edit] Moon rocks

The Apollo Program collected a total of 382 kilograms of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon—no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals are known that dispute this claim. The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and terrestrial rocks^[65] in that they show a complete lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence for having been subjected to impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical characteristics. Furthermore, most are significantly older than the oldest rocks found on Earth (by up to 700,000,000 years). Most importantly, though, they share the same characteristics as the Soviet lunar samples that were obtained at a later date.^[66]

Hoax proponents argue that Wernher von Braun's trip to Antarctica in 1967 (two years prior to the Apollo missions) was in order to study and/or collect lunar meteorites to be used as fake Moon rocks. Because von Braun was a former SS officer (though one who had been detained by the Gestapo),^[67] hoax proponents have suggested^[19] that he could have been susceptible to pressure to agree to the conspiracy in order to protect himself from recriminations over the past. While NASA does not provide much information about why the MSFC Director and three others were in Antarctica at that time, it has said that the purpose was "to look into environmental and logistic factors that might relate to the planning of future space missions, and hardware".^[68] An article on Sankar Chatterjee at Texas Tech University states that von Braun sent a letter to F. Alton Wade, Chatterjee's predecessor, and that "Von Braun was searching for a secretive locale to help train the United States’ earliest astronauts. Wade pointed von Braun to Antarctica." Even today, NASA continues to send teams to work in parts of Antarctica that are very dry and mimic the conditions on other planets such as Mars and the Moon.

It is now accepted by the scientific community that rocks have been ejected from both the Martian and lunar surface during impact events, and that some of these have landed on the Earth in the form of Martian and lunar meteorites.^[69][70] However, the first Antarctic lunar meteorite was collected in 1979, and its lunar origin was not recognized until 1982.^[71] Furthermore, lunar meteorites are so rare that it is very improbable that they could account for the 382 kilograms of Moon rocks that NASA obtained between 1969 and 1972. Currently, there are only about 30 kilograms of lunar meteorites in existence, even though private collectors and governmental agencies worldwide have been searching for these for more than 20 years.^[71]

The large combined mass of the Apollo samples makes this scenario implausible. While the Apollo missions obtained 382 kilograms of Moon rocks, the Soviet Luna 16, 20, and 24 robotic sample return missions only obtained 326 grams combined (that is, less than one-thousandth as much). Indeed, current plans for a Martian sample return would only obtain about 500 grams of soil,^[72] and a recently proposed South Pole-Aitken basin sample return mission would only obtain about 1 kilogram of Moon rock.^[73] If a similar technology to collect the Apollo Moon rocks was used as with the Soviet missions or modern sample return proposals, then between 300 and 2000 robotic sample return missions would be required to obtain the current mass of Moon rocks that is curated by NASA.

Concerning the composition of the Moon rocks, Kaysing asked:

Why was there no mention of gold, silver, diamonds, or other precious metals on the Moon? It was never discussed by the press or astronauts.^{[5], p. 8}

Geologists realize that gold and silver deposits on Earth are the result of the action of hydrothermal fluids concentrating the precious metals into veins of ore. Since even in 1969 water was known to be absent on the Moon, no geologist would bother discussing the possibility of finding these on the Moon in any significant quantity

[edit] Deaths of key Apollo personnel

In a television program about the hoax allegations, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of ten astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killed as part of a cover-up.

• Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
• Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
• Virgil Ivan "Gus" Grissom (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967). His son, Scott Grissom said the accident was a murder.^[74] Bill Kaysing also makes this claim.^{[5], p. 41}
• Ed White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
• Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
• Ed Givens (car accident, 1967)
• C. C. Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
• X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program in November 1967 - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
• Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later canceled) program.
• NASA worker Thomas Baron (automobile collision with train, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired). Ruled as suicide. Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing.^[74][75]
• Lee Gelvani said he almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Gelvani about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred.

All but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their job with NASA or the Air Force. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. All but one of the deaths occurred at least one or two years before Apollo 11 and the subsequent flights.

Contemporary with the deaths of the Apollo-related astronauts, other astronauts and cosmonauts died without having had a connection to Apollo:^[76]

• Grigori Nelyubov — February 18, 1966 (Soviet cosmonaut)
• Joseph Walker — F-104 crash June 8, 1966 (X-15 program)
• Vladimir Komarov — Soyuz 1, April 24, 1967
• Russell L. Rogers — F-105 crash September 13, 1967 (Dyna Soar program)
• Mike Adams — X-15 crash November 15, 1967
• Robert Lawrence — F-104 crash December 8, 1967 (Manned Orbiting Laboratory program)
• Yuri Gagarin — MiG 15 crash March 27, 1968
• Pavel Belyayev — January 10, 1970 (Soviet cosmonaut)
• James M. Taylor — T-38 crash September 4, 1970 (MOL program)
• Georgi Dobrovolski — Soyuz 11 June 29, 1971
• Vladislav Volkov — Soyuz 11
• Viktor Patsayev — Soyuz 11

[edit] Gravity on the Moon

The hoax investigation site Xenophilia.com claims that versions of the Encyclopædia Britannica from the 1960s (pre-Apollo missions) have the neutral point between the Earth and the Moon 20,520 miles from the Moon. "In theory," the site claims, "a Moon with 1/6 Earth's gravity should have a Neutral Point between 22,078 and 25,193 miles from the Moon's surface. Yet after the Apollo missions, Time magazine July 25, 1969 said 'At a point of 43,495 miles from the Moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant.'" The site claims that the 1973 Encyclopædia Britannica gave a new neutral point distance of 39,000 miles.^[77]

• The surface gravity of an astronomical body such as the Moon is not directly related to the position of the neutral point between it and the planet it orbits. The neutral point between the Earth and Moon depends on the mass of the Earth, the mass of the Moon, and the current distance between them—which varies between the apogee of 405,500 km and perigee of 363,300 km, due to the Moon's orbital eccentricity of 0.055. In contrast, the surface gravity of the Moon depends only on the gravitational constant, the mass of the Moon, and the radius of the Moon (see the equation at surface gravity, and see Moon for the mass and radius of the Moon). The surface gravity does not depend on the distance to Earth or the Earth's mass, so the "neutral point" and "sphere of influence" are irrelevant to the Moon's surface gravity. The Moon's surface gravity is very close to one-sixth that of Earth's.^[78]

• Spacecraft from several nations have traveled to or past the Moon,^[79][80][81] so unless all their space programs are part of the conspiracy, at least one should have indicated by now if the mass of the Moon was incorrect. Similarly, if lunar gravity was four times as high as generally believed, it would be demonstrable on Earth in unexpectedly large tidal action, the Moon's orbital characteristics, and the Earth's wobble. The Surveyor program Moon landers had an engine thrust of 150 pounds and their landing weight was approximately 660 pounds on Earth. Five of these spacecraft soft-landed on the Moon in 1966-68. If the Moon's surface gravity was much larger than one-sixth that of Earth's, the spacecraft would not be able to soft-land on the Moon.

• The website appears to be confusing the Moon's sphere of influence and the point at which the Moon's gravitation and Earth's are equal. NASA were concerned with the Moon's sphere of influence, which starts around 40,000 miles from the Moon, and marks the point where the Moon's gravity has more influence on the spacecraft's trajectory than the Earth's. The 'Apollo 16 Flight Journal'^[82] comments on this: "we're scheduled to cross that mythical line known as the lunar Sphere of Influence, the point of which we begin calculating the increasing of the lunar gravity on the spacecraft. Our displays here in Mission Control shortly after that point are generally switched over to Moon reference from Earth reference. The velocities that we have been watching decrease steadily up to now, will then begin to increase as the spacecraft is accelerated toward the Moon.." The point where the lunar gravity and Earth's gravity are equal is around 25,000 miles, so there's no discrepancy to explain: they appear to be measuring different things.

• The site fails to note that the flight paths of the Apollo crafts were curved, not straight-line, so the neutral point within their flight paths would be significantly larger than the straight-line neutral point range of 22,000-25,000 miles (for illustration, see the bands of gravitational influence in the diagram accompanying Lagrangian point). The 'Time' article's statement would then be equally as true as the early 1960s 'Britannica'. The statement that the 1973 'Britannica' reported a different figure is currently unverified. The 1966 edition of The World Book Encyclopedia (volume 13, page 650) gives the Moon's surface gravity as one-sixth that of Earth's.

• Video of eyewitness account of moon gravity: Dr Buzz Aldrin talks about moon gravity and walking on the moon^[83]

[edit] Involvement of the Soviet Union

Main article: Soviet space program conspiracy accusations

A primary reason for the race to the Moon was the Cold War. The Soviets, with their own competing Moon program and a formidable scientific community able to analyze NASA data, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing,^{[44], p. 173} especially as their program had failed. Successfully pointing out a hoax would have been a major propaganda coup.

Bart Sibrel responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled."^[84]

However, Soviet unmanned spacecraft had been landing on the Moon since 1959.^[85] and in 1962, "deep space tracking facilities were introduced at IP-15 in Ussuriisk and IP-16 in Evpatoria (Crimean Peninsula), while Saturn communication stations were added to IP-3, 4 and 14",^[86] the latter having a 100 million km range.^[87]

However, Apollo 18 and 19 were cancelled on September 2, 1970 due to budget cuts by the US Congress.^[88] Apollo 20 was canceled on January 4, 1970.^[89]

[edit] Individuals featured in the controversy

Main article: Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers

[edit] Major hoax proponents and proposals

• Bill Kaysing (1922-2005) an ex-employee of Rocketdyne,^[90] (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket). Kaysing was not technically qualified, and worked at Rocketdyne as a librarian. Kaysing's self published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle^{[5][44], p. 157}, made many allegations, effectively beginning the discussion of the moon landings possibly being hoaxed. NASA, and others, have debunked the claims made in the book.
• Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker and investigative journalist, produced and directed four films for his company AFTH^[91], including a film in 2001 called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon,^[92] examining the evidence of a hoax. Again, the arguments put forward therein have been debunked by numerous sources, including svector's video series Lunar Legacy ^[93] which attempts to disprove the documentary's primary argument that the Apollo crew faked their distance from the Earth command module, while in low orbit. Sibrel believes that the effect on the shot covered in his film was produced through the use of a transparency of the Earth. Sibrel was also famously punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin while accusing the former astronaut of being "a coward, and a liar, and a thief." Sibrel attempted to press charges against Aldrin but the case was thrown out of court when the judge ruled that Aldrin was within his rights given Sibrel's invasive and aggressive behaviour.
• William L. Brian, a nuclear engineer who self-published a book in 1982 called "Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program," in which he disputes the Moon's surface gravity.
• David Percy, TV producer and expert in audiovisual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is co-author, along with Mary Bennett of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers (ISBN 1-898541-10-8) and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon?. He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blower" accusation, arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to 'blow the whistle' on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.^[94]
• Ralph Rene - An inventor and 'self taught' engineering buff. Author of NASA Mooned America (second edition OCLC 36317224).
• Charles T. Hawkins - Author of How America Faked the Moon Landings,
• Philippe Lheureux - French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune (Lights on the Moon): La NASA a-t-elle menti?.
• James M. Collier (d. 1998) - American journalist and author, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? in 1997.
• Jan Lundberg - A technician for Hasselblad, the company that developed and manufactured the cameras used by the astronauts.
• Jack White - American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
• Marcus Allen (publisher) - British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem - the Russians did that in 1959 - the big problem is getting people there."^[95]
• Aron Ranen - Directed Did we go? (co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, NYC, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco). He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts.
• Clyde Lewis - Radio talk show host.^[96]
• Dr. David Groves - Works for Quantech Image Processing and worked on some of the NASA photos. He said he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Using the focal length of the camera's lens and an actual boot, he has calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera.^[97][98]

[edit] Large telescopes and the Moon hoax

Another component of the moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

To see the 1.2 meter long flag left on the Moon, an Earth-based telescope would have to be 200 meters wide, whereas the largest telescope on Earth is only about 10 meters across. Furthermore, such a telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics. The Hubble Space Telescope can only see objects on the Moon as small as 60 meters across.^[99][100]

[edit] People accused of involvement in the hoax

• Deke Slayton, NASA Chief Astronaut in 1968: Some hoax proponents (for example, the 'NASA Scam'^[101] website, and Clyde Lewis^[102]) say that Slayton was one of the primary leaders of the hoax. He visited the film set of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in the UK, which he referred to as "NASA East".
• Stanley Kubrick is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollo 11 and 12.^[96] It has been claimed, without any evidence, that in early 1968 while 2001: A Space Odyssey (which includes scenes taking place on the Moon) was in post-production, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. In this scenario the launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would have remained in Earth orbit while the fake footage was broadcast as "live" from the lunar journey. Kubrick did hire Frederick Ordway and Harry Lange, both of whom had worked for NASA and major aerospace contractors, to work with him on 2001. Kubrick also used some 50mm f/0.7 lenses that were left over from a batch made by Zeiss for NASA. (However, Kubrick only acquired this lens for Barry Lyndon (1975). The lens was originally a still-photo lens and required modifications to be used for motion filming.)

[edit] Other evidence and issues

[edit] NASA book commission and withdrawal

In 2002, NASA commissioned James Oberg $15,000 to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims, and, in the same year, cancelled their commission in the face of complaints that the book would dignify the accusations. Oberg said that he intends (funding allowing) to finish the project.^[103][104] In November 2002 Peter Jennings (ABC’s World News Tonight anchor) said "[NASA] is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the Moon." Jennings said "[NASA] had been so rattled, [they] hired [somebody] to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists."

[edit] Academic work

In 2004, Drs Martin Hendry and Ken Skeldon at Glasgow University were awarded a grant by the UK based Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to investigate 'Moon Hoax' proposals.^[105]

In November of that same year, they gave a lecture at the Glasgow Science Centre where the top ten lines of evidence advanced by hoax proponents were individually addressed and refuted.^[106]

[edit] Attempts to view the landing site

Leonard David published an article on space.com,^[107][108] on 27 April 2001 showing a picture taken by the Clementine mission which shows a diffuse dark spot at the location that NASA says is the Lunar Module Falcon. The evidence was noticed by Misha Kreslavsky, of the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University, and Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkov Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine.

The European Space Agency's modern Moon probe, the SMART-1 unmanned probe, sent back imagery to the ESA of the Apollo Moon landing sites, according to Bernard Foing, Chief Scientist of the ESA Science Program.^[109] Given SMART-1’s initial high orbit, however, it may prove difficult to see artifacts, said Foing in an interview on the website "space.com'. No photos have so far been released, according to the website.

The Daily Telegraph published a story in 2002 saying that European astronomers at the Very Large Telescope (VLT, the most powerful telescope in the world) would use the telescope to view the remains of the Apollo lunar landers. According to the article, Dr. Richard West said that his team would take "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites". Marcus Allen, a Moon hoax believer, pointed out in the story that no images of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had taken place^[110] (Allen believes robot missions placed objects there). The article greatly overstates the power of the VLT (it can show details only as small as 130m at the distance of the Moon) and so it is not surprising that no images sharp enough to resolve the lander have been forthcoming.^[108] Such photos, if and when they become available, would be the first non-NASA produced images of the site at that definition.

The Hubble Space Telescope can resolve objects as small as 280 feet (86 meters) at the distance of the Moon; again, not good enough to settle this issue.

Alex R. Blackwell, of the University of Hawaii has pointed out that photos taken by Apollo astronauts^[108] are currently the best available images of the landing sites; they show shadows of the lander, but not the lander itself. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (planned for 2008) is slated to produce better pictures as part of its mission.^[99]

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched their SELENE lunar orbiter on September 14, 2007 (JST) from Tanegashima Space Center, a main orbiting satellite at about 100km altitude and two small satellites (Relay Satellite and VRAD Satellite) in polar orbit. In May 2008 JAXA reported detecting the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15 lunar module engine exhaust from a Terrain Camera (TC) image.^[111]

[edit] MythBusters special

Main article: MythBusters (season 7)#Episode 104 - NASA Moon Landing

An episode of MythBusters in August 2008 was dedicated to NASA and each myth was related to the moon landings. A number of myths were tested such as the pictures and video footage. A few members of the MythBusters crew were allowed into a NASA training facility to test some of the myths. All of the hoax-related myths tested that episode were Busted, supporting the Apollo lunar landings as genuine.

[edit] Quotes

• "We've been to the Moon nine times. Why would we fake it nine times, if we faked it?" — Charlie Duke, in the documentary In the Shadow of the Moon.^{[112][113][114]}

[edit] Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody

Main article: Apollo hoax in popular culture and parody

[edit] See also

• Jim Lovell - was unsuccessfully sued by Kaysing for libel.
• Astronauts Gone Wild
• In the Shadow of the Moon
• Dark Side of the Moon (documentary)
• MythBusters NASA Moon Landing episode

[edit] References

1. ^ Did Men Really Land on the Moon?
2. ^ Landing a Man on the Moon: The Public's View
3. ^ First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, by James R. Hansen, 2005, Simon & Schuster, pp 515-16.
4. ^ van Bakel, Rogier (September 1994). "The Wrong Stuff" (magazine). 'Wired'. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved on 2007-05-09. "Are you sure we went to the moon 25 years ago? Are you positive? Millions of Americans believe the moon landings may have been a US$25 billion swindle, perpetrated by NASA with the latest in communications technology and the best in special effects. Wired plunges into the combat zone between heated conspiracy believers and exasperated NASA officials."
5. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h} We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, Bill Kaysing, Pomeroy, WA, USA: Health Research Books, 2002. ISBN 1-85810-422-X.
6. ^ Irrefutable proof [Archive] - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum
7. ^ Wired 2.09: The Wrong Stuff
8. ^ The Apollo-11 UFO Incidents by James Oberg
9. ^ Lheureux, Philippe (2000). Lumières sur la Lune. Editions CARNOT. ISBN 2912362490.
10. ^ Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
11. ^ The Apollo Program (1963 - 1972)
12. ^ Rudin, Mike (2006-12-08). "The danger with conspiracies". BBC.com.
13. ^ ^{a b} Cziesche, Dominik; Jürgen Dahlkamp, Ulrich Fichtner, Ulrich Jaeger, Gunther Latsch, Gisela Leske, Max F. Ruppert (2003). "Panoply of the Absurd". Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel. Retrieved on 2006-06-06.
14. ^ Calder, Vince; Johnson, Andrew P.E. (2002-10-12). "Ask A Scientist". Newton "Ask a Scientist", General Science Archive. "Newton", Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved on 2007-02-07.
15. ^ "Laser Ranging Retroreflector". NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Experiment. National Space Science Data Center, NASA (2006-12-04). Retrieved on 2007-02-07.
16. ^ Unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried mirror arrays. (Lunokhod 1 : "Luna 17/Lunokhod 1". NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Spacecraft. National Space Science Data Center, NASA (2006-12-04). Retrieved on 2007-02-07., (Lunokhod 2 : "Luna 21/Lunokhod 2". NSSDC Master Catalog Display: Spacecraft. National Space Science Data Center, NASA (2006-12-04). Retrieved on 2007-02-07.) Reflected signals were received from Lunokhod 1, but then it was left in a position preventing the return of signals. (Stooke, P. J. (March 14-18, 2005). "Lunar Laser Ranging and the Location of Lunokhod 1". 36th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract no.1194, Lunar and Planetary Institute, NASA. Retrieved on 2007-02-07. )
17. ^ Matthews, Robert (2002-11-25). "Telescope to challenge moon doubters". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2007-02-07.
18. ^ Apollo Moon landings tapes reported missing, Wikinews, August 5, 2006.
19. ^ ^{a b} Did We Go? The Evidence Is In!
20. ^ SolarViews.com
21. ^ a peer-reviewed paper in "Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia"
22. ^ On Eagle's Wing: The Story of the Parkes Apollo 11 Support
23. ^ Lost Moon landing tapes discovered | COSMOS magazine
24. ^ http://www.honeysucklecreek.net.nyud.net:8080/Apollo_11/tapes/Search_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf
25. ^ http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670010532_1967010532.pdf
26. ^ Carmelo Amalfi, Lost Moon landing tapes discovered, COSMOS Magazine, Nov 1,2006
27. ^ ^{a b} Xenophilia - Moon Hoax Debate
28. ^ The Collier article - a critique
29. ^ Clavius: Bibliography - the Collier article
30. ^ The Cradle of Aviation Museum
31. ^ LM-13
32. ^ http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/lunarmod/index.html
33. ^ SPACE.com - Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage
34. ^ The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle
35. ^ The Space Review: Lunar rovers past and future (page 1)
36. ^ Lunar Rover Operations Handbook
37. ^ Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 5 (Did we land on the moon?)
38. ^ Moon Landing Hoax Top 10 Reasons
39. ^ Bart Sibrel
40. ^ Clavius: Technology - beating the soviets
41. ^ Soviet Lunar Landing
42. ^ Clavius: Photography - image quality
43. ^ Clavius: Photography - crosshairs
44. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j} Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax", Dr. Philip Plait, John Wiley & Sons, 2002. ISBN 0-471-40976-6. See esp. chapter 17.
45. ^ Astronomy magazine, August 2008, p 75
46. ^ http://www.iangoddard.net/Moon01.htm
47. ^ ^{a b} Who Mourns For Apollo?, part II, by Mike Bara.
48. ^ http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
49. ^ http://www.lunaranomalies.com/c-rock.htm "C" rock analysis
50. ^ http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html "C" rock
51. ^ Fly Me to the Moon : Astronomy : School : Education : Web Wombat
52. ^ Clavius: Photo Analysis - buzz's hot spot
53. ^ MAD19
54. ^ See Ms. Irene Schneider on the November 20, 2005 episode of The Space Show.
55. ^ Blinding Flashes
56. ^ Clavius: Environment - heat
57. ^ Sickening Solar Flares
58. ^ SkyandTelescope.com - News from Sky & Telescope - Predicting Solar Eruptions
59. ^ Radio Lag
60. ^ Apollo 11 Mission Summary
61. ^ Apollo 11 TV – as seen in Australia
62. ^ On Eagle's Wings: The Story of the Parkes Apollo 11 Support
63. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8fCxRQJS9M Bart
64. ^ Mindell, David A (2008). Digital Apollo. MIT Press, 195-197. ISBN 978-0-262-13497-2.
65. ^ Tony Phillips. "The Great Moon Hoax: Moon rocks and common sense prove Apollo astronauts really did visit the Moon". Science@NASA.
66. ^ James Papike, Grahm Ryder, and Charles Shearer (1998). "Lunar Samples". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 36: 5.1–5.234.
67. ^ "Wernher von Braun in SS uniform".
68. ^ "Marshall Highlights for 1967". Marshall Space Flight Center History Office.
69. ^ James N. Head, H. Jay Melosh, and Boris A. Ivanov (2002). "High-speed ejecta from small craters". Science 298: 1752–1756. doi:10.1126/science.1077483. PMID 12424385.
70. ^ Bill Cooke (2006). "The Great Interplanetary Rock Swap". Astronomy 34 (August): 64–67.
71. ^ ^{a b} Randy Korotev (2005). "Lunar geochemistry as told by lunar meteorites". Chemie der Erde 65: 297–346. doi:10.1029/2005JE002516. (inactive 2008-06-26).
72. ^ "Aurora exploration programme: Mars sample return". European Space Agency.
73. ^ Michael Duke (2002). "South Pole-Aitlen basin sample return mission". COSPAR.
74. ^ ^{a b} Comments on the FOX special on the Hoax
75. ^ NASA Apollo Mission Apollo-1- Baron Report
76. ^ Furnis, T.: Spaceflight - the records, 1985, Guinness Superlatives Ltd., ISBN 0-85112-451-8
77. ^ Xenophilia - Moon Hoax Debate
78. ^ Horizons: Exploring the Universe, Michael A. Seeds, Wadsworth, 1995, p. 378. ISBN 0-534-24889-6.
79. ^ ESA Science & Technology: SMART-1
80. ^ http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/tmp/1990-007A.html
81. ^ Russia's unmanned missions toward the Moon
82. ^ Apollo 16 Flight Journal Chapter 9: Day 3 Part 2: Lunar Module Activation and Checkout
83. ^ Save Our History: Apollo: The Race Against Time at www.history.com
84. ^ http://www.Moonmovie.com/Moonmovie/default.asp?ID=8
85. ^ Soviet Lunar Programs
86. ^ Russia's space command and control infrastructure
87. ^ Soviet Space Tracking Systems
88. ^ Apollo 18
89. ^ Apollo 20
90. ^ Clavius: Bibliography - bill kaysing
91. ^ AFTH, LLC website
92. ^ Moon Hoax MOONMOVIE.COM A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon DVD - Front Cover & Bart Sibrel
93. ^ index
94. ^ Clavius: Bibliography - dramatis personae
95. ^ Telescope to challenge moon doubters - smh.com.au
96. ^ ^{a b} Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky!
97. ^ The Apollo Hoax
98. ^ http://mrbasheer.tripod.com/Moonwalk.htm
99. ^ ^{a b} NASA - Abandoned Spaceships and Moon Buggies
100. ^ anon (2007). "Ask Astro". Astronomy 35, #11: 62.
101. ^ Apollo Truth
102. ^ http://www.groundzeromedia.org/dis/Moondoggle/Moondoggle.htm
103. ^ http://www.jamesoberg.com/042003lessonsfake_his.html
104. ^ "Nasa pulls Moon hoax book", BBC News (2002-11-08). Retrieved on 2008-08-05.
105. ^ Cafe Scientifique
106. ^ Nov 2004
107. ^ Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images
108. ^ ^{a b c} Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon?
109. ^ http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050304_Moon_snoop.html
110. ^ World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon, Robert Matthews, The Daily Telegraph (online), November 23, 2002
111. ^ JAXA site
112. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/02/film.spaceexploration
113. ^ http://www.thespacereview.com/article/787/1
114. ^ http://www.canada.com/cityguides/toronto/story.html?id=d30c4111-291b-4b5b-b61b-7a18a80887ab

[edit] External links

• Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Photos, audio, video and complete communication transcriptions of the six successful landings and Apollo 13
• Hoax: Lunar Landing at the Open Directory Project
• "A Moon Landing? What Moon Landing?", New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-08-05. , John Noble Wilford, The New York Times, December 18, 1969, p. 30.

[edit] Television specials

• Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? (2001) (TV) at the Internet Movie Database
• Opération lune (2002) (TV) at the Internet Movie Database